Talk:Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions

Older discussions may be found here:

Archive

• Talk:Holocaust denial/Archive 1
• /Archive 2

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

RJII's changes

User:RJII has made some dramatic changes. My sense is that such important changes in such a contentious article should be discussed first. I've invited him here to discuss the issues. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I noted the difference between holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism. And, I modified the section on the IHR, because they say point blank that they do not deny the holocaust: "Detractors of the IHR have often mischaracterized it as a “Holocaust denial” organization. This smear is completely at variance with the facts. The Institute does not “deny the Holocaust.” Every responsible scholar of twentieth century history acknowledges the great catastrophe that befell European Jewry during World War II." [1]

We've been through this before; see the very first topic in this Talk: page. No-one admits to be a Holocaust Denier - they all call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists", thus the distinctions you are trying to make are specious. This is merely a terminology issue, there are no fundmental differences between any of these groups. I re-issue my challenge from many months ago; find me a group that call themselves "Holocaust Deniers", and then we'll be able to compare them to all the other groups, which call themselves "Holocaust Revisionists". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You better believe it's a "terminology issue." It's a big terminology issue. And the terminology is wrong. There is a difference between denying the Holocaust and revising some historical accounts of the Holocaust. If you can't find any groups that deny the Holocaust, then this article is simply bogus. RJII 16:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no difference in their methodology, they just prefer a different name. There are no groups that admit denying the Holocaust, but there are dozens that deny it while calling themselves "revisionist". The article discusses this. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

If no groups "admit" denying the Holocaust, then no groups deny the Holocaust. (unless you claim to know something that's going in their heads that they haven't put to paper). RJII 16:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

They're not classified by their beliefs, but by their actions and statements. One doesn't need to know what is going on their heads at all to do that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII's argument is absurd. Chickens do not go around calling themselves "chickens" but nevertheless they are chickens. It is true -- no one, not even Jayjg contests this -- that Holocaust deniers call themselves something else. So the article should include the fact "Holocause deniers call themselves revisionists" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It does say that, in the opening paragraphs. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, your argument is absurd and absolutely insane. Someone is only a Holocaust denier if they deny the Holocaust. If they don't, then they are not a Holocaust denier. Disputing certain historical accounts of some aspects of the Holocaust does not constitute denying the Holocaust. RJII 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't? So you're making up your own definition of what Holocaust Denial consists of? What is your specific definition of Holocaust Denial, then? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is denying that a holocaust happened. This is elementary. I can't believe I'm having this conversation. RJII 19:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

And how do you define "the Holocaust"? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I define it as Merriam-Webster defines it:

"3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the."

Therefore, to be deny the Holocaust, you have to deny that there was a mass slaughter of Jews. Disputing aspects of historical accounts, while not denying a mass slaughter, is not a denial of the Holocaust. RJII 20:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust consists of more than a mass slaughter of Jews; it also involved intentional, organized killings, in death camps, including the use of gas. Does your definition cover that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mass slaughter of Jews is a necessary and sufficient condition for a holocaust. RJII 23:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

See more accurate definitions below. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the IHR: it is rightfully called a source of holocaust denial literature, as it is a) replete with folks who deny the holocaust (or was, as it is now pretty much defunct, if I am not mistaken), b) organized a host of meetings that promoted holocaust denial (such as giving a platform to Fred Leuchter -- though I still think the dude is actually honest and still has no clue what is going on -- or David Irving -- who once was a decent historian, but fell off his rocker several years ago), and c) all it's publications -- while many claim to deal just with minor details of the holocaust -- all promote the basic agenda that mainstream Holocaust research is invalid.

Anybody who has access to IHR literature will be able to confirm this, and, of course the IHR claims it does not deny the Holocaust simply because it wants to limit the high probabilities of it's cant to be indexed by the German, Austrian, and French government again.

(as a liberal, i have some problems with the policies of those governments, but i can see where they are coming from)Dietwald 20:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Simple Test

To find out whether somebody is a holocaust denier or not, simply ask this question: "do you think the historical data supports the claim that the Nazi government was responsible for the killing of millions of jews during the time of its reign?"

If the answer is anything but a clear "Yes", you have the first indication that you may have to do with a holocaust denier.

You could follow this up by asking: "do you think that the historical data does not support the claim that the Nazi government was responsible for the killing of millions of jews during the time of its reign?"

if the answer to this question is not an unambigious no, you are dealing with a holocaust denier.

End of Story

Dietwald 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. To determine if a person or organization is a holocaust denier, research whether they assert that millions of Jews were not killed. If they assert that that didn't happen, they're a Holocause denier. If they don't, then this article is unjustified in labeling them deniers of the Holocaust. This article is really screwed up. RJII 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it denial if they deny a specific campaign to exterminate certain groups (Jews and Gypsies especially; homosexuals, Communists, JW's, Slavs, dissidents, etc appear to have been more "targets of opportunity")? I mean, I've seen lots of "Whoops, it was all a big accident, how was the SS to know that putting people in camps, forcing them to work at hard manual labour, and not feeding them enough might kill them?", to be a bit hyperbolic. --Edward Wakelin 20:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Nizkor has a useful discussion on this[2]. The Holocaust is defined in terms of five to six million Jews killed by a central act of state by the Nazis and collaborators during the Second World War, many using gas chambers, shootings, and other forms of industrialized murder. To deny this three part-definition (either the number, the plan, or the methods), is to be a Holocaust denier, including denying that the Holocaust was centrally planned, or that it consisted of institutionalized mass murder, since it was precisely these elements (centralized decisions and efficient mass murder), along with the death toll, that made the Holocaust such a horrific event. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean that's HIS definition. According to his definition, if it was 5 million killed then it wouldn't be a holocaust. Absurd. RJII 23:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be The Holocaust. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether 3 million or 100 million were killed, it's still The Holocaust. RJII 00:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII, a similar definition is used by the US Holocaust Museum: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Can you please quote some historian or scholar that says that the central planning, mass killings, and around 6 million death toll are not all necessary conditions for the Holocaust? You seem to have a very strong agenda, but you are not stating it directly, perhaps it would be good to do so. How many Jews do you think were killed? How do you think they were killed? Was the Holocaust centrally planned? And, most importantly, which scholars do you see as revisionists, but not deniers?. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My "agenda" is to make the article more coherent. To dispute specific historical claims about the Holocaust is not to deny the Holocaust. In fact, the IHR says outright that it does not deny the Holocaust, yet it disputes some historical claims concerning it. RJII 02:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The IHR is a bad choice to defend, as its role in denial and their deceptive tactics are so very well documented. I reccomend, for example, Denial vs. Revisionism. Of course they do not claim to be deniers, as the article states clearly, denier is a label applied to people who deny the Holocaust, not a label they take themselves. I can claim to be an anarchist, but if I am in favor of pervasive socialist government my self-label is irrelevant and misleading. What do other sources say about the IHR? That they are the leading site of Holocaust denial. Allowing them to say that they are not is intellectually dishonest. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Intellectually dishonest."? How much more intellectually dishonest can you be than to call someone a "Holocaust denier" and then not allow them to say that they don't deny the Holocaust? Now that's "intellectual dishonesty." RJII 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII, they are holocaust deniers, courts say so, reputable sources say so, scholars say so. One does not usually take seriously the fact that hate groups deny they are hate groups -- nobody ever says they are racist, or anti-Semitic, or a Holocaust denier. Besides, this issue is addressed in the second paragraph: "While the term "denier" is objected to by the people to whom it is applied, who prefer "revisionist", it is nevertheless the one commonly used to refer to those espousing such views, to distinguish them from the legitimate approach of historical revisionists." Can you provide me some reputable or scholarly sources, besides the IHR and related Holocaust deniers that are connected to them, that says that the IHR is doing actual research? I am not sure to what purpose you are defending them -- do you think their research is correct or their hearts in the right place? If you make it a bit clearer, perhaps this discussion will go easier.--Goodoldpolonius2 16:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone says they acknowledge that the Holocaust occured (which the IHR says), then they do not deny the Holocaust. It's as simple as that. RJII 16:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep ignoring all of my points, and those of the other editors on this page. The "test" you are using is of your own devising. The IHR has developed their own definition of the Holocaust, one which does not involve anywhere close to six million deaths, that does not involve gassing, or the targeting of Jews. One in which the Jews are engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover this up. One in which there was only "some scattered killings" (in the words of the IHR Director). This is clear in the IHR's own words. To quote from Rauber, who directly quotes from the head of the IHR: "the question [of whether the IHR denies the Holocaust] appears to turn on IHR's Humpty-Dumpty word game with the word Holocaust. According to Mark Weber, associate editor of the IHR's _Journal of Historical Review_, "If by the `Holocaust' you mean the political persecution of Jews, some scattered killings, if you mean a cruel thing that happened, no one denies that. But if one says that the `Holocaust' means the systematic extermination of six to eight millions Jews in concentration camps, that's what we think there's not evidence for." That is, IHR doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened; they just deny that the word "Holocaust" means what people customarily use it for." They don't deny that something happened in WWII, which they call "the Holocaust", but it isn't what anyone else calls the Holocaust. Again, do you have any sources other the IHR itself? And what point are you trying to make here? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. The don't deny the Holocaust happened. Rather, they believe that the common claims of what happened during the Holocaust are exaggerated. There is not universal agreement on everything that happened, obviously. According to them, they even publish books that affirm the common opinion on what happened. There is a difference between denying that the Holocaust occured and disputing what happened during the Holocaust. This article doesn't recognize this simple bit of logic. RJII 16:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What!? The IHR denies the Holocaust -- the intentional and centralized slaughter of around six million Jews -- happened, and I and the other editors provided many sources to show this, including their own admission. Then they use the word Holocaust to describe an entirely different thing -- "some scattered killings" -- and claim that they don't deny that THAT happened. Allowing someone to change the entire meaning of a word for propaganda purposes is what you are now calling a "simple bit of logic." Every outside source says they deny the Holocaust. Your only source is the IHR itself, which, of course, would never admit that it denied the Holocaust, since their mission is to undermine the whole idea of the Holocaust under the guise of scholarship -- have you read any of the material about this organization? You are going to have to do better than that for sources, and, hopefully, engage with some of the other comments here as well.

I saw you put a quote from Weber in the article. He's the director of the IHR, but was he relaying the offical IHR position or his own position? The IHR publishes books that offer a range of views on what happened, on how many were killed, etc. Also, at what point does one become a Holocaust denier? If they say 5 million are the a denier? If they say 1 million are they a denier? The article doesn't give any real explanation. RJII 23:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII, Goodolpolonius2 is correct. IHR is a bad defendant for any 'lawyer'. They are guilty as charged. Just go to their website. It's not even research they are doing, it's plain old promotion of an idea in lots of different guises. It's a bunch of anti-semites. RJII, what 'Holocaust Denial' refers to is the implicit or explicit promotion of the idea that the Nazis did not kill millions of Jews through intentional means, including gas chambers. What is legitimate research is to find out how many Jews were killed in gas chambers -- I don't think the number is really certain yet. As far as I know, the lowest estimates for this are in the hundreds of thousands, the highest are probably two to three million. BUT, I am mere guessing here. Also legitimate research is to find out whether details of the Holocaust are as we currently believe them to be. An example of this was the idea that the Nazis made soap out of the bones and fat of dead jews. I think this claim has been delegated to the realm of legends, where it belongs. Another topic is, for example, whether there was a systematic use of the skin of Jews for the creation of lampshades and other such applications. I think this occurred only in very rare and exceptional cases. This, too, however, is a legitimate debate, and has nothing to do with Holocaust denial.

All these are legitimate topics of historical review -- but the IHR is NOT doing historical review. It is promoting a very specific agenda, no matter what it puts on its disclaimers.

Maybe one should add a section to the article defining what is NOT Holocaust denial.

Dietwald 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's not forget the point that the Holocaust was part of a greater plan... Grill the deniers on the other 5 million. If they start pulling the whole "Well, it wasn't gas chambers, it was starvation, not our fault" shtick, mention that on those grounds, the numbers of dead nearly double: This is great fun. If they deny that Jews were specially targeted, then the numbers increase. Before getting into arguing about gas chambers, point-blank ask them if rounding up people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, sexuality, whatever, is wrong. Ask them if then taking those people, working and starving them to death, etc, is wrong. If they don't say it's wrong, or in fact say it's RIGHT, then you're dealing with a hell of a lot more than a revisionist or a gas-chamber denier or whatever they call themselves nowadays! Engaging them on something other than whether gas chambers existed, or what some gloves and lampshades were made out of, brings their beliefs to a head. "There were no gas chambers" or "The gas chambers were not as used as is said" can be defended as historical inquiry (Whether real or bogus), basic disrespect for human rights can't. --Edward Wakelin 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edward: Excellent addition to the discussion. Fully agree. Dietwald 17:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Another useful clue is that legitimate, non-biased historical revisionists can be differentiated from deniers and their ilk by looking at the reasons they present for why whatever they're at odds with is generally accepted: Somebody who talks about how exaggeration is natural, how memories can be incorrect, how things have been misunderstood, how things have been sensationalised, etc might well be legit. Somebody who goes into theories presenting an actual attempt to lie... Well, they're a mixed bag. At the fringes, some are pretty legit. They make good points that some people have taken advantage of an awful historical event for some purpose of their own. But then the actual deniers and loonies and anti-semites start to claim that EVERYBODY not on their side is taking advantage of it. They start to advance Jewish-conspiracy theories of different magnitudes. "Confessions were gotten through torture", for instance: They'll claim that EVERY SINGLE ACCOUNT is faked. If it's an account by a Jew, "Well, obviously they're lying". If it's by a non-Jewish inmate, "they were probably bought off or something". If it's an SS camp guard or what have you, "it was obviously gotten out of them through torture". That's what they'll say. Physical evidence? "Planted after the war". If you decide to use the technique of reductio ad absurdam, their technique can be used to deny just about anything: It's fun, try it. It can become downright philosophical.

But these conspiracies have one thing in common: To some degree or another, they do what a lot of conspiracies do, which is make the "Bad Guys" out to be downright superhuman. The stereotypical "Jewish Conspirator" common in these theories is amazingly smart, incredibly good at predicting the future, sneaky, and capable of amazing feats of secrecy and propaganda. No proof? "That's just because they're so good, they got rid of it all".

So, anyway, things to look for are 1) Some justification for putting the various groups that were rounded up into the camp, and 2) Conspiracy theories. --Edward Wakelin 16:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Semantics aside, and acknowledging that the most attempts to mitigate the barbarity of the Holocaust stem from anti-Semitism, and granting it's a highly emotional topic, it doesn't follow that historical arguments about numbers or methods the Nazis employed are "per se" racist. It is a fallacy to presume that if a racist believes 'X', X is racist. I once had a Russian lit. class where the professor, sort of out of nowhere, said something to the effect that the 6 million number was high, that it was probably around 4 million, and the "extra" two million were people who emigrated, or Polish Catholics. I have no idea if its true or not, and I would submit few readers here would without research. However, there is also the 'argument from prior numbers", i.e., that there weren't 6 million Jews in Europe prior to the Holocaust. Again, I don't know if that's true {but suspect, for obvious reasons, it is not}. My point is twofold: 1} if historical research is suggestive of relatively minor, or even moderate revisions to aspects of the standard Holocaust narrative, it is not "racist" to suggest that history, with a basis in records, should be improved; 2} Those who actually deny or largel repudiate the Holocaust presumably seize on to small pieces of legitimate historical evidence, and essentially, produce an acorn and argue a forest. This article would do well to explore those legitimate historical arguments that racist revisionists use, and demonstrate how those arguments are used out of context, etc. There's that old story about the Devil mixing his lies with aspects of truth.... * [KRM30]

RJ's Question

Also, at what point does one become a Holocaust denier? If they say 5 million are the a denier? If they say 1 million are they a denier? The article doesn't give any real explanation. RJII 23:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think RJ DOES have a valid question here, regardless of what he trying to argue. How DOES one differentiate legitimate historical revision from denial? Just hypothetically speaking, how does one avoid labelling a legitimate historian a denier, SHOULD someone find evidence that maybe there were less dead people, or that there has been some terrible mistake in the entire understanding about the holocaust? It's an unlikely event, but -- as they say -- shit happens.

I think the point is whether the question is used to promote an anti-semitic agenda. This is something that needs to be made more obvious in the text, the link between denial and anti-semitism.Dietwald 05:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no fixed number, but any significant diminution of the numbers would be viewed as denial; certainly a claim that only 1 million Jews were killed would be viewed as such. And, of course, the IHR denies various other critical aspects of the Holocaust as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Then you admit there is a difference between a denier and a revisionist. This article needs to state that. It gives the message that if anyone disputes the commonly accepted figures that they're a "Holocaust denier." It needs to be made clear that one can be a "Holocaust revisionist" while not being a "Holocaust denier." Or, would making that known be too politically incorrect? And, I disagree that asserting that 1 million were killed would be "Holocaust denial." 1 million dead sure sounds like a holocaust to me. RJII 05:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have admitted no such thing - all historians know that the number of Jews murdered is not known exactly, merely that it is somewhere close to 6 million, typically between 5 and 6 million. Someone who statest that it was 5.4 million or 6.2 million would not be considered a "revisionist", by themselves or anyone else. More importantly, you still have not answered my challenge, repeated many times; provide an example of a someone who actually admits to being a "denier". And while 1 million dead might indeed be considered a mass murder, or genocide, it is certainly not "The Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

So you don't admit that one can revise accounts of the Holocaust without being a denier of the Holocaust. How closed-mindedand intellectually dishonest. For the answer to your challenge look in this very article. There is a photo of KKK individuals explicitly denying the Holocaust. RJII 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to put words in my mouth that I obviously haven't said; doing so, is in fact, "intellectually dishonest". As for the photograph, I simply repeat my challenge; find me someone who admits to be a Holocaust "denier". Quote the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Then I ask you point blank: Is it possible to be a Holocaust revisionist while not being a Holocaust denier? And, why the hang-up about finding someone who admits to denying the Holocaust? I don't think it would be too difficult to find someone who says the Holocaust didn't happen. RJII 23:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you read the article? Legitimitate historians who question details of the Holocaust are not called "revisionists", they are called "historians". That is because Holocaust deniers have so tainted that term "revisionist" that legitimate Holocaust historians want nothing to do with it. As for your continual evasions, I will simply repeat my challenge; find me someone who admits to being a Holocaust "denier". Better yet, find me some group that admits to being "Holocaust deniers". It is quite apparent by now that you can't. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Arguing that something sounds like "a holocaust to me" just doesn't make sense, the Holocaust is a defined and well-researched event, it is like saying that anarchy sounds like socialism to me. The Holocaust involves the centrally-planned Final Solution in which somewhere around 6 million Jews were killed, many by methods such as gas chambers. The IHR denies each part of this equation, not just the number, and they do not use honest historical methods, which has been very well documented. The point in identifying denial or revisionism is not just a number, it is whether one is actually engaging in honest, academic debate or trying to prove an anti-Semitic point by working backwards. In the words of McFee, "'Revisionists' depart from the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur and work backwards through the facts to adapt them to that preordained conclusion. Put another way, they reverse the proper methodology [...], thus turning the proper historical method of investigation and analysis on its head." The IHR was founded by a neo-Nazi to disprove the Holocaust, it does not engage in historical research, and, even though their arguments have been disproved many, many times, including in courts, they do not stop spreading obvious lies (the Auschwitz "death toll revision" lie, as one example). That is what makes them a denier, rather than a revisionist. RJII seems to keep avoiding this basic point, and has yet to provide any sources that any reputable historian or source thinks that these people are engaging in real historical research, of which honest historical revisionism is a part. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Here's a source that thinks "these people are engaging in real historical research." The US government cites a study in this report: [3]. Here is the Wyman Institute criticizing the government for calling them "scholars and researchers” and as a “scholarly association." [4] RJII 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, perhaps you should read the report, rather than taking the IHR's word for it. The US governemnt source you cite actually says:

In 1984 a monograph was published in the Journal of Historical Review that reviewed the published literature of wartime intelligence, including the Police decrypts, which carried information about the massacres and the concentration camps. The article called into question what the intelligence actually revealed about the Nazi’s ultimate plan for the elimination of Europe’s Jews. Unfortunately, the journal in which this article appeared was a well-known forum for that faction of scholars and researchers associated with a movement known as “Holocaust denial.” Rather than discuss the intelligence about the Holocaust and how Allied officials differed over its meaning, or review the Nazi program of silence and obfuscation about the Final Solution, the author claimed that the gaps in Allied intelligence suggested that many aspects of the Holocaust, such as the gassings at Auschwitz, were a fiction. However, the amassed evidence from captured records and the testimony of Holocaust victims and perpetrators overwhelms the article’s contention. Later releases of Police decrypts to the PRO would illustrate how the missing intelligence was attributable to greater German security measures and the limitations in the communications intelligence system.

Not too great a source for proving your point, since it says explictly that they are Holocaust deniers. Also, I noticed you have not answered the well-sourced fact that these people are repeatedly repeating disproved points or out-and-out lies, not engaging in research, and that they were founded by neo-Nazis to disprove the Holocaust. Incidentally, my new favorite quote on the IHR comes from the Lebanon Daily Star, certainly not known for a particularly pro-Jewish outlook, which called the IHR "loathsome pseudo-historians" and an "international hate group," and, in a terrific quote, said of an attempt to hold an IHR meeting in Lebanon "as one former PLO official has put it, 'with friends like that, we don't enemies'." Why are you supporting these guys again? --Goodoldpolonius2 00:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It does not say "explicitly that they are Holocause deniers." It says they are "associated" with a movement called "Holocaust denial." That's obvious. We all know that. But that doesn't mean that they actually do deny the Holocaust. The question at issue is what constitutes "Holocaust denial." RJII 13:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

They actually deny the holocaust. And then they lie about not doing so. This isn't POV; this is fact. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What is holocaust denial? READ THE BLOODY INTRO TO THE BLOODY ARTICLE. Hell, this is becoming BORING. Dietwald 17:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

At what point do we move on?

Okay, so clearly RJII supports the Institute for Historical Review, and claims that they don't deny the Holocaust, despite all the evidence to the contrary, from basically every source imaginable. I could continue to provide reams of material on the subject, but it seems somewhat pointless to repeat the work done by many others who dealt with this group, and others like it. Everyone from the courts to scholars have found the IHR to be a dishonest and anti-Semitic organization, founded to disprove the Holocaust by a man who wrote "Who is using who? Who is calling the shots? History supplies the answer to this. History tells us plainly who our Enemy is. Our Enemy today is the same Enemy of 50 years ago and before - and that was before Communism. The Communists are "using" the Jews we are told ... who was "using" the Jews fifty years ago - one hundred or one thousand years ago. History supplies the answer. The Jews came first and remain Public Enemy No. 1."[5] I don't know whether RJII really believes that he is defending a misunderstood group, or whether he believes the Holocaust never happened, but, in either case, the continued effort to defend this group as honorable scholars in the face of overwhelming evidence of how dishonest they are leaves me at a loss as to how to proceed. I can keep providing sources, but given that RJII is the only person defending the IHR, and he seems to ignore all evidence to the contrary, it seems sort of pointless to continue this. How do we move forward from here? --Goodoldpolonius2 00:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not "defending the IHR," per se, but am making points to show how the article is lacking. At what point does revision become Holocaust denial? I had not heard of the IHR until a week ago, and have read no historical accounts from them. I'm neutral on the issue of how many were killed. But, that's not relevant. Logic tells me that revising numbers killed or methods killed does not constitute denying the Holocaust as long as enough occured to constitute a holocaust. As a neutral person that has come upon this article, I'm struck by its irrationality. RJII 13:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are defending the IHR, to great length and despite every bit of evidence presented by every other editor on this page. You may not have heard of them before, but during the course of this discussion, you certainly have been exposed to many sources showing that these guys are anti-Semitic pseudo-scholars founded by Neo-Nazis dedicated to Holocaust denial, yet you continue to use them as an example of something you think is legitimate revisionism. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. It's your position that being anti-semitic automatically disqualifies you as a scholar? If one has a POV they have nothing to contribute? RJII 14:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you truly not get it that completely? It's not that the IHR is anti-semitic, it's not that they have a POV -- it's that they are dedicated to proving a lie, and everything they do is to support their propagation of falsity; and their dedication to falsehood is based purely on hatred of Jews. It is utterly unencyclopedic to use a source committed to untruth. IHR is naturally going to present itself in the most favorable light; you'll have trouble finding a single source outside the holocaust denial industry that gives them any credibility whatsoever. Please note that many of us have been dealing with the IHR and other holocaust deniers for decades -- if you detect exasperation in our tones here, it's because it is a serious disappointment every time another obviously intelligent person gets snowed by them. Dealing with the foaming at the mouth Jew-haters in their ranks is a lot easier; they can be safely ignored. At any rate, presenting a neutral point of view does not require parroting the position papers of liars. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On what do you base the claim that they're "committed to untruth"? Just because they may come to some conclusions that are untrue, doesn't mean they are lying (intentionally telling a falsehood). You may say that you're not basing your dismissal of their studies on their anti-semitism, but obviously you're still attacking their motivations, and discounting them on that account. How do you know that they don't sincerely believe that mainstream accounts of the Holocaust have been exaggerated? RJII 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever they sincerely believe is irrelevant, it is clear that they claim to be, and their methods, are out-and-out lies, they are neither objective historians nor revisionists: "We reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians" -- the Organization of American Historians; "They clearly have no business claiming to be a continuation of the revisionist tradition, and should be referred to as 'Holocaust Deniers'." -- History Teacher, Vol 28. Perhaps you have not read any of the material about their methods, their history of falsehoods, and their commitment to proving a conclusion regardless of any basis in fact. That is the only charitable explaination I can come up with for your argument, that, in the light of all the sources provided here (and your lack of any sources) you think that they are honest scholars. I think this is getting pointless rapidly, since you have clearly demonstrated that absolutely no amount of evidence will convince you about the IHR's commitment to untruth and their position as Holocaust deniers. Unless you provide some impressive evidence that actually requires a response, replying to you seems to not be getting us anywhere. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously my argumentation is getting us somewhere. Due to my prodding the intro is much improved. RJII 00:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it astonishing you would take credit for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just don't know what to say. I guess we are done with this topic. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• We simply move forward, treating edits against consensus the way we always do around here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

d'accord. If RJ would not defend the IHR, but talk about this question in more general terms, he might actually have a point. But, the IHR IS denying the holocaust. So do its 'branches' in Germany and other countries, where parallel publications are circulated -- or have been circulated -- by a gentleman named Udo Walendy. He calls his publication 'Historische Tatsachen', and the publication is modelled very closely on the Journal of Historical Review. Interestingly enough, considering the names of those institutions, they are not dealing with historical review in general -- but ONLY with the Holocaust and WWII in general, commonly claiming that most of what we know about the war is not true, that the Nazis did not willfully start the war, etc. There are publications that claim that the "night of broken glass" (Kristallnacht) was actually organized by the Jews themselves, and similar such shenenigans.

I concede in the spirit of science that there always is the possibility that we all may be wrong, and that there could be some terrible misunderstanding about the Holocaust. Maybe aliens from outer space rounded up all the jews and brought them to Alderbaran. Maybe we all live inside a giant computer, and the world is run by mice. Who knows...;) But, at this point in history, however, and according to the current knowledge we have, the Nazis did kill about six million jews by various means, including gas chambers, and the world is in fact several billion years old. I find the idea about mice intriguing, though...Dietwald 09:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Dietwald, good edits to the intro, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Dishonesty?

The intro says: "Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions." Where is the evidence that "holocaust deniers" typically willfully misuse or ignore records? How do we know that it's willful? Don't most people with a POV look for evidence to prove their conclusion instead of evidence to disprove it? Isn't that human nature. If they miss something that would contravene it, that in itself is not evidence that ignorance is "willfull." So, I'd like to see evidence of this, and further, evidence that it's typical. Also, I'd like to know, does it have to be willful in order to be Holocaust denial? If not, it needs to be said that not all "Holocaust deniers" are dishonest. RJII 02:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, do you know any who aren't? Please introduce us to this honest Holocaust denier. (It's possible that a Holocaust denier is insane, brainwashed, or deluded rather than dishonest.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought we were done. I guess not. Please see the documents above, which have been repeatedly brought to your attention, about the way that the small group of Holocaust denier "researchers" have used evidence and records. This "evidence" has been refuted many times by many authorities, and this has been brought to their attention, yet they keep repeating the same lies (the Auschwitz death toll plaque, etc.) without mentioning that these things are false or even that they have been challenged. Give us the name of an honest Holocaust denier. Really. One who engages with the rest of the academic world. It clearly isn't the IHR. And, of David Irving, Professor Evans of Cambridge wrote: "Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian." Your argument is strange in any case. The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records, and that is the proven method of the IHR and its cronies. Proven in courts, proven by scholars, proven as much as ever possible.

I am beginning to question your good faith here. This thread is full of you asking for some sort of proof, proof being provided and you never engaging with the issue again. You claim that you don't defend the IHR, but you systematically ignored every piece of evidence about how dishonest they are, repeating the same questions again and again. Most recently you mentioned that an anti-Semitic POV would be a useful contribution to this article[6]. So, I am placing the burden on you give us the name of an well-regarded and honest Holocaust denier, heck, give us any mainstream reputable source supporting any of your conclusions about the good will and honest methods of Holocaust denial, or stop playing games. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records..." Is circular reasoning all you have to offer? By the way I did not "mention that an anti-Semitic POV would be a useful contribution to this article." I asked you if you though being anti-semitic rules one out as being a legitimate historian. What I'm getting from you is you think that if someone is anti-semitic then all their research should be dismissed. That is an irrational position to hold, especially considering that individuals motivated by a POV can uncover evidence that those with the opposite POV would not discover. Anyway, about my question. You give an example of Irving as being dishonest. Let's say he is dishonest. Now how is that evidence that the typical "Holocaust denier" is dishonest? It seems to me you would have to go through each one and prove enough of them are dishonest to justify saying they are typically dishonest. But, all you have to offer is the circular reasoning: "The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records..." Your kind of mentality is exactly what's corrupting this article. RJII 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Your kind of mentality is exactly what's corrupting this article." Thanks for stating your position so clearly, I would actually say that your defense in the face of facts of dishonest organizations that every outside observer calls racist and pseudo-sceintific is a slightly bigger problem, but that's me. As to your question, the Holocaust denier "researcher" world is small, and tends to be centered around the IHR -- we have demonstrated that the IHR is dishonest, willfully misuses evidence, non-historical, and driven by a single goal that arose out of anti-Semitism, rather than a pursuit of truth. They represent the typical denier, indeed, they are an umbrella agency for most deniers. Thus let me repeat: So, I am placing the burden on you give us the name of an well-regarded and honest Holocaust denier, heck, give us any mainstream reputable source supporting any of your conclusions about the good will and honest methods of Holocaust denial, or stop playing games. This should be easy. If they are not typically willfully misusing records, there should a nice set of honest folks you can point to whose research is well regarded. Who are they? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've never claimed that any "Holocaust denier" had good will. So, no the burden is not on me. The burden is on you to show that the typical Holocaust denier is acting out of bad will or dishonest. Your reasoning is circular and bizarre. It goes as follows: The mainstream account of the Holocaust is correct, therefore, anyone who disputes it is wrong. And, the non sequitur: "The Holocaust happened. Denying the Holocaust therefore typically involves willful misuse or fabrication of records." RJII 14:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or distort information. That is a fact. You say that this is not the case, that this is not a fact, that I (and the other editors) are wrong, and you do this by claiming exactly that Holocaust deniers "had good will" -- that some group does not willfully misuse or distort information. The nice thing about your claim is that it can be proven by finding the name of a few Holocaust deniers whose research and methods are well regarded. If these people do not exist, then your case does not hold water. Simple, no? Good luck on your continued defense of these people. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only is your reasoning warped, but you continue to misrepresent me after I've corrected you. I've never claimed that any "Holocaust deniers" had good will. One thing is certain now. You don't have good will. RJII 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Prove your point already or stop wasting time. If I am wrong, it should be easy to show it (and by "good will" I mean an honest effort to seek truth, not disporve it, by the way, which is exactly what "typically misuse" argues against). You have yet to provide a single source outside of an IHR press release. Stop flinging insults and provide some sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not up to me to prove anything. I haven't made a claim. You're the one making the claim that the typical "Holocaust denier" is acting in bad faith. RJII 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a 100% true claim that the typical denier is acting in bad faith, as the sources earlier in this discussion stated repeatedly. If I am wrong, or lying, or accidentally misled, you need to show the error of my ways, because everyone agrees with me. Your burden of proof is light, here, find a well-regarded exception. Prove your point or nobody will believe you. Why the inability to provide a source? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody will believe me about what? I haven't made a claim. No evidence has been presented here by you, or anyone else, that the typical Holocaust denier is "willfully" misusing and ignoring information. To make that claim in the article is therefore unjustified. RJII 15:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You have made very much made a claim that at least some deniers are not willfully misusing information, despite repeated evidence to the contrary (Holocaust denial is "at best a form of academic fraud" - The American Hisorical Association). That is, you are arguing that it is not typical for deniers to willfully misuse evidence. That is a claim. You may find it self-evident, I and the other editors do not. Prove it. If it is self-evident and the article is unjustified, proof is easy, and all you need is a couple examples. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No I have not made a claim that any "deniers" are not willfully misusing information. You're lying. RJII 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I am totally confused, this is a binary choice -- Holocaust deniers either do or don't typically willfully misuse information. I have provided proof, including individual incidents and the words of the AHA, that they do typically willfully misuse information. You, apparently, agree. So, we can re-insert "deniers typically willfully misuse information" back into the article, because you agree that they are willfully misusing information? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree or disagree that they typically willfully misuse information. I'm agnostic on the matter. But, the article states that they typically willfully misuse information. To make such a claim requires evidence. RJII 16:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, by removing "willfully", you certainly are arguing that they DO NOT typically willfully misuse information. In the IHR discussion above ("they are not Holocaust deniers"), it was clear that no standard of evidence will convince you, despite the fact that the IHR and the deniers associated with them are proven liars and frauds. I tried to make this easier by asking you to demonstrate that the claim in the article is false, which would be easy, if true. You are unable or unwilling to do that, and the consensus is against you. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm arguing no such thing. You're engaging in a desperate attempt to assign an argument to me that I haven't made. You're being dishonest. I will continue removing the claim that "Holocaust deniers" typically "willfully" misuse information, until evidence is presented to support that claim. RJII 17:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

(Moving left). David Irving is the most successful "Holocaust revisionist" historian. He was found by the British court to be a Holocaust Denier, and the judge's verdict stated that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence. That's their best historian, and a court of law has found that he is not only a Denier, but that he willfully distorts the evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe some holocaust deniers are not dishonest after all, but, just like young earth creationists, unbelievably stupid? RJ, do you like that better? Maybe we should change the sentence from "willfully" to "willfully or out of complete ignorance of even basic historiographic methodology" :D Dietwald 19:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Some more edits

Ok, I made some more edits to the text. There are two argumens used by deniers that are actually not as untrue as others. To my knowledge, there has been no specific Fuehrerbefehl to exterminate the Jews. I tried to show that this does not make any difference and that there is ample evidence that shows that Hitler and other upper echelons of the Nazis knew about the holocaust.

The second is that there may in fact not have been an explicit initial plan to exterminate all Jews, but that it may have grown out of the policies of the Nazis. This, too, is a legitimate debate, and i tried to show that this also does NOT exonerate the Nazis - they still did the killing, and it was still organized, even if it was haphazardly done at times.

Third, there was a consensus NOT to say that the PA REGULARLY publishes and promotes denial lit, and i put that into the text. I think this was agreed upon after a short discussion some time ago.

Fourth, I changed several references to 'revisionism' into 'denial'. I think this, too, is in line with the consensus.

I hope i have not offended.

Dietwald 10:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree on the Fuehrerbefehl... It's ridiculous to believe that this all went on without Hitler knowing it, or the upper Nazi leadership didn't know. That the killing "grew" doesn't somehow make the whole thing more forgiveable... Putting people in camps is already wrong. Perhaps there should be more info about non-Jewish victims? It increases the death count, especially if they're pulling out the old chestnut of "The deaths were mostly because of disease and starvation and blah blah blah".

And another reason that the entire term "Holocaust revisionist" is often bunk is because what sort of legitimate historical revisionist focuses entirely on one topic? If they were just going through historical records, looking at things that weren't entirely true, for instance, that might be one thing. But if they devote all their time to trying to prove that there were no gas chambers? Bit one-note, eh? --Edward Wakelin 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm putting an NPOV tag on the article, due to the assertion that "Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions." There is no evidence that it is typically willful. How would one know what is going on in the head of the Holcaust denier anyway? The NPOV way to take care of this would by to say something like "It is usually claimed that Holocaust deniers typically willfully misuse or ignore historical records." RJII 16:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RJII, I understand the impulse to make everything relative so that it sounds "NPOV", but this is a clear-cut case where the NPOV version is to keep "typically willfully". Every example we have of Holocaust denial "scholarship" involves willful misuse or ignoring of historical records. Every one. So saying "typically willful" is totally and absolutely correct. If you disagree, give us a counterexample. You have already made this case many times, and it has been rejected many times. Either put up a source showing this is indeed not true or your NPOV tag will be removed. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those who make the claim that they typically willfully misuse inforation. There is no burden on me. If you remove the tag you will be engaging in vandalism. You must provide evidence for the statement. All you've done is bring up opinions from people. Either state that these are opinions or remove the claim. RJII 17:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand -- it has been proven that these people typically willfully misuse evidence. Does anybody believe that these people do not typically willfully misuse evidence? No one admits to being a murderer either, but it is not wrong to call them that if they have been proven to be so by the courts and unanimous opinion, similarly, no one admits to being a fraud, but you can call them that if there is unanimous facts in your favor. For you to claim this is mere opinion, you need to show that someone disagrees with it. You are saying there is disagreement, but you haven't provided any reason to believe you, NOT ONE SOURCE. If it is not truth, show some evidence to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, and it's not even tongue in cheek: "Holocaust deniers typically display complete disregard for proper historiographical methodology. In fact, several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, their research is at best tainted by a an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent."

What do you folks think? Dietwald 18:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Great start, but I would propose: Holocaust deniers typically display complete disregard for proper historiographical methodology, changing facts and ignoring evidence in order to suit their pre-determined conclusion. In fact, several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found by courts to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, their research is, in the words of the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, "at best, a form of academic fraud." --Goodoldpolonius2 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Deitwald, if you changed that to this, I think I would be fine with it: "Several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, many conclude that that it is typical of Holocaust deniers to disregard proper historiographical methodology. It is commonly held that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent." RJII 18:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RJ, it is not commonly held that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and is at worst outright fraudulent. It is a FACT that this is so.

After all, would you agree to a wording that said "it is commonly held that the earh is a sphere"? or "it is commonly held that young earth creationism is scientifically untenable"? I doubt it, and IF -- than I don't think this discussion is of any further utility.

IF you could provide evidence that Holocaust deniers employ proper historiographical methodology, maybe we can get somewhere. BUT, that's about as likely as finding a Young Earth Creationist who employes proper scientific methodology.

And remove that 'disputed' tag already. I CAN see RJs point, but I think he is overlabouring it. Dietwald 19:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the bloody tag. RJ, don't put it back in. Your position smacks of epistemic relativism. Dietwald 19:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I put the tag back in. You're not supposed to remove those without a consensus. It's vandalism. RJII 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

To claim that Holocaust deniers typically and willfully misuse information is making an irrational leap from the premise that a judge rendered an opinion that Irving willfully misused information. It's very difficult to make such a claim unless the great majority of "Holocaust deniers" are each studied and proved to be willfully misusing information. RJII 19:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

RJ, there IS consensus that the NPOV tag should be removed. Consensus does NOT mean unanimous agreement. Consensus can be reached even IF one party to the discussion vehemently objects. Look it up, talk to people who make a living negotiating things.

Holocauste deniers DO willfully misuese data. Whether out of ignorance or malice is irrelavant. Dietwald 02:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and could you start responding to questions people ask you? You sound like a broken record -- is that willfull? Dietwald 02:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm going to stand on my head and suggest that "wilfully" be removed. Not because of RJII's arguments, which are reasonable but just wrong in this context; rather, it's unnecessary. Just saying they typically misuse or ignore the historical record is sufficient. There are lots of reasons they typically do this; it could be willful, or they could be stupid, they could be mentally disturbed, or they could be blinded by hatred, or some other unpleasant reason. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I would second that. BUT, no epistemic relativism, please. As I said, I CAN see RJ's point, but he is belabouring it too much. I second removing willfully, but not adding any relativations along the lines of "commonly believed" etc. That would just be wrong. AND -- there STILL seems to be consensus on this page being NPOV, and there being no need for a tag saying otherwise. And, RJ, you really should start replying to questions instead of being just a nuisance. Dietwald 06:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am another user who made the NPOV edit recently (203.211.67.238) which was promptly reverted. First of all, since mindless name-calling seems to be rampant here (anybody doing any changes is immediately labelled "holocaust denier" or "nazi"), here's a disclaimer first: I am not a national socialist, nationalist, racist, white supremacist, white separatist, or in any way associated with individuals or organisations promoting such views (it's not exactly relevant, but I am perhaps closest to being a communist). So please restrain yourself and try to keep to civilised discussion on the topic.

Now, as far as article goes - I strongly agree with RJ that it is definitely POV. Not so much on the factual side as it is on the wording, which seems to make many subtle but strong connotations stemming from personal beliefs of the authors, and certainly not backed by any sources. As I understand, there are thus at least 3 people here who believe the non-NPOV marking on the article is desired, so I put it back in - and if you believe I don't have a point, please tell just how many people disputing the NPOV-ness of the article you need. Furthermore, if anything, the long list of reverts done in the last few days shows the lack of concensus. My position on this is that, for as long as we have an ongoing dispute on the Talk page, the sign should be there. int19h 14:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this is becoming really -- strange? After RJ failed to convince the community that his POV is to be considered, he decides that this articel is not NPOV, and puts the tag on. After he is challenged that he is the only one to think this article is NPOV, Int19h appears out of nowhere, claiming he supports RJ, and also claims there are now THREE people who think this is not NPOV... 1+1=3?. Int19h NEVER wrote ANYTHING on wiki, and his page only appeared today. Check it out.

This stinks. Really, really stinks. I have no idea how to go about it, but I would like to have this checked for sock-puppeteering. IF I am mistaken, and RJ is not playing sock-puppet, I will apologise whole-heartedly. But, I would like this investigated by the administrators before we continue.

if Int19h is a bona-fide user, than this was just terrible timing, and I am sorry to have levelled this accusation at him. BUT, I DO would like to see an investigation of the matter.

Thank you. Dietwald 19:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be mistaken. Int19h has had sporadic contributions since spring of 2004. They've not been substantial, but this isn't an "I just showed today!" sort of thing. I suggest politely that your dudgeon is misplaced. (PS: I checked first too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I would've thought that at least checking my edit history would be something one should do before making such accusations. Furthermore, if it is the only reason why my edit adding the NPOV tag was reverted, then it is rightly re-reverted by RJ now - or if whoever did it had other reasons, please give them. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Int19h, my Apologies. I DID check your edit history, but I did not see anything in there. But, I DO apologise for my unjustified accusation. Thank you, jp, for confirming that he's bona fide. Dietwald 03:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What is NPOV

Quoted verbatim from Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute for those people who insist that NPOV warning does not belong here:

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.

Bolding is mine. I hope it clarifies things a bit. If you are for removing the warning, please explain how it fits into the above on a point-by-point basis, to contain the discussion and not let it turn into another flamewar. int19h 15:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You only exist since today? How convenient. What's wikipedia policy on sock-puppets? Folks, go to int19h's user page. This really pisses me off. Dietwald 18:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

See above. I refuse to discuss anything with users who don't even bother to check my history before throwing around accusations, and furthermore, resort to attacks on my person rather than discussing the subject at hand. If you have a comment on what I posted here, you're welcome to reply in a civilised manner. Otherwise, please keep your neo-nazi conspiracy theory to yourself. Thank you. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Int19h, please accept my apologies. I DID check your history, but I did not see anything there. That was most likely due to my technological incomptence. So, since I have mistaken your for a sock-puppet -- a most serious allegation to level at anyone -- I admit to have made a grieveous mistake. Again, I apologise without reservation. Dietwald 08:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• But sometimes one viewpoint IS more correct than another. The viewpoint that the earth is flat is less correct than the scientifically observable truth. The viewpoint that the Holocaust did not occur (or that it was trivial, or that it was unintentional) is less correct than the historically verifiable truth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not dispute that. But read the quote once again. For your convenience, I repeat the relevant part: "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral". I am certainly not advocating the POV that Holocaust did not occur (nor, I believe, is RJ - though I can be wrong, and I'll let him speak for himself), nor disputing that most people who hold this POV are indeed brain-damaged - but this is also my own POV, it is not neutral, and I do not pretend it to be. I can wholeheartedly agree with your position, but the article has to be NPOV regardless. It isn't. It is fine on the factual side, but the way it is written is basically emotionally (I'm not touching the factual side here) insulting to those who happen to be on another side of the barricades regarding the issue. Furthermore, it has certain factual inaccuracies: e.g. the phrase "amateur historians" - there was already a list of non-amateur historians given here, however, when I corrected it to be "mostly amateur historians" to reflect this, my change gets reverted - erm? int19h

For me, that's not the POV issue. Whether the Holocaust was 6 million, 1 million, or 60 million dead, is not relevant for me. Either way, an attrocity occured. The issue is the assertion that "Holocaust deniers" are maliciously motivated by asserting that they "typically willfuly" misuse information. This is a highly POV assertion, as no one knows what is going on the "typical" "Holooaust denier's" head. I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt that there are many who are actually convinced by their studies that the number killed in the Holocaust has been exaggerated by a significant amount. Calling people "Holocaust deniers" who say they don't deny the Holocaust but merely think the severity was exaggerated is one questionable thing, but to personally attack the motivations of everyone who holds such a position is not proper in an encyclopedia. RJII 17:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

But their motivations are, almost without exception (hence "typically" rather than "universally"), are as described. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what their motivations are? RJII 20:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Decades of exposure to them and study of their methods. That, of course, is OR -- which is why I'm willing to take out the "willful" word; as I said, there is a range of motivations for people to work to perpetuate anti-Semitic fraud. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The key word here is "almost". That is why I made several edits to overgeneralising statements ("all deniers are anti-semites") to be more factual ("most deniers are anti-semites"). Apparently, it is still an issue with some other users, and I'd like to know why. int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the NPOV notice is reasonable, however, there is a lack of sources for the claims which are being questioned which, unfortunately, makes it's placement technically legitimate in my view. I suggest that those wishing to remove the NPOV notice see Verifiability and choose an inline references system such as Wikipedia:Footnote3. Simply adding credible sources to statements such as "it is considered to be" will improve the visible neutrality no end. Mozzerati 21:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the reasonablitity of NPOV notice - I wonder, what exactly seems unreasonable about it? It has exactly two lines of text. The first one states that neutrality of the article is disputed - looking at this Talk page, is there any doubt about that? The next one suggests to read the discussion, which is exactly what people who revert my edits say in the description of their edits. So, what exactly is the problem with it being there? int19h 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right that a lot of the problems can be solved with minor wording changes such as "is it considered to be," etc. But the clique that has been monopolizing this article is not willing. RJII 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words don't help anything -- they give the appearance of NPOV without actually conveying any information or actually being NPOV. Regarding cliques -- it's refreshing, for the first time, to see an editor who is rebuffed for making changes against consensus declaring that the opposition is a clique.

Regarding Int19h's question -- just because one person has a problem with an article doesn't make it POV. Nor does a disagreement on a talk page; were this the case, disputants could pin NPOV tags on any article at any time...and there would be no way ever to remove them unless everyone miraculously agreed with everything (or shut up and went away). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, there are at least 2 users (RJ and me) having problem with the article as it is now, and there's more if you also count the ones who actively participated in the discussion earlier (as seen in the archives). Also, I'm not saying that any kind of disagreement warrants a NPOV tag; only if the disagreement is on whether the article is NPOV. You say that clear expression of disagreement on the talk page by several users is not enough; what is, then? And I will repeat my older question: what exactly is wrong with the tag being present on this article? which specific part of the warning it displays do you consider factually incorrect as applied to the article? int19h 00:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would also like to note that not having an NPOV tag on the article itself contradicts the "controversial" tag on the talk page (the warning sign for the latter explicitly says, "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed).int19h 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• My suggestion is: keep the article as it is for now (got to begin somewhere). Stick the NPOV warning on it so that people are aware of the discussion which is going on on the talk page. And protect it from edits till the issue is resolved - it is rather clear that we have a revert war here, which is not good. int19h 00:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't need protection. Protection is only for when people are being unreasonable, and as a last resort. I'd still dearly love for someone to come up with a single example of a holocaust denier who does not ignore and misuse historical evidence, willfully or otherwise; it's pretty much the definition of a holocaust denier. How much of the decades of recorded dialog with holocaust deniers, most of it wherever the logs of alt.revisionism or whatever it's called are, should we put here, as examples of the misuse? (IHR and JHR feature quite prominently there.) How much of Irving v. Lipstadt should be cited here? It is not possible to be a holocaust denier without ignoring and misusing historical evidence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I'm certainly not disputing the fact that Holocaust revisionism is misinterpreting historical evidence. The world "willfully" is gone from there for good, and I don't have any problems with that phrase now. It's not the only questionable one in the article, though. I've mentioned the "amateur historians" being factually incorrect already, and there are a few more cases where better wording is due - for the sake of simplicity, I will refer you to the diff for my edits. int19h 01:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• fix that link please? it's just the history of the whole page; which diffs are you referring to?--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC) -- fixed int19h 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Amateur historian?

I have a problem with "amateur historian" as well. What does that mean? If you're making money selling history books and speaking, it seems to me you would be a professional historian. It comes across as an obvious slight at those with a minority opinion of history. RJII 02:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As it should, in this case, since the particular "minority opinion of history" involves denying historical factual data. But in this case, "amateur historian" means "non-academically-qualified historian". I mean, I can install a new faucet, but that doesn't make me a plumber. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

So you have to have a degree in history to not be an amateur historian? Is that what you're saying? If so, is your claim then that none of the so-called "Holocaust deniers" have an academic degree in history? RJII 03:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there one who has one? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Curiously enough, there is a brief list of Ph.D's who support Holocaust revisionism on this very page above (in section #17). I went through that list, and none of those degrees are in history -- which is also somewhat telling. However, unless you have information on academic career of each and every revisionist out there, so that you can definitely state that none of them hold academic degrees in history, I would argue for a more precise wording - something along the lines of "vast majority are amateur historians", or perhaps "all well-known are ..." - since the latter does seem to be true (but perhaps someone has sources saying otherwise? I sure don't know any). int19h 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is from the IHR website: "If the skeptical (or revisionist) view of the Holocaust was really as simplistic and indefensible as some insist, it would not have gained the support of university professors such as Arthur Butz and Robert Faurisson, historians such as Roger Garaudy, David Irving and Harry Elmer Barnes..." RJII 04:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not so sure one has to have a degree in history to not be an "amateur historian." Do you have any official writings on this to back up that claim? RJII 05:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading the David Irving article, I don't see how anyone could conclude that he's an "amateur historian." RJII 05:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so why Irving specifically cannot be considered a professional historian? I think I can answer that. First of all, as said above, he doesn't have an academic degree, so this (perhaps the simplest) verification method gives a negative result. It is obviously not the only one, though, and just like the article on him explicitly states, he was at some point of his life considered a professional historian based on the importance of his findings. He basically lost his credence, and with it his status, though, after the he lost the libel suit. Just to remind, it was found that his theories not only do not have scientific basis, but that he willingly distorted facts and knowingly used forged documents as a basis for his theories. This is definitely not a behaviour compatible with being a professional historian. int19h 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could come to any other conclusion. Irving has no degrees in history, nor has he taught history at a university level; this would seem to make him an amateur historian, or perhaps "history popularizer", but certainly not a professional. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement that someone have a degree in history to be a non-amateur historian. You're only placing that condition on Irving because you disagree with his historical account. Certainly there are plenty of non-amateur historians around that don't have a degree in history. RJII 14:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you name some professional historians who have no degrees in history? As for his "historical account", it was found to have been deliberately falsified for ideological reasons by a court of law, in a case he himself brought - it is the British court system (and apparently other historians) who disagree with it. Also, please restrict your comments to article content, not your suppositions about other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, David Irving is a professional historian with no degree in history. If you need more, just go through the list of historians. RJII 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please answer the question? Can you name another modern "professional historian" who has no degrees in history? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel like going through the list, and there is no reason to answer the question. Irving is a professional historian that does not have a history degree. Being a "Holocaust denier" doesn't exclude him. There is no official authority requiring someone to have a history degree in order to be a professional historian. RJII 17:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As I suspected; you made a bald assertion for which you have no evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

And what "assertion" have I made beyond: "There is no official authority requiring someone to have a history degree in order to be a professional historian."? RJII 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You clearly asserted Certainly there are plenty of non-amateur historians around that don't have a degree in history.; I'm suprised you've forgotten that so quickly, as it was exactly what we had been talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I see. I didn't mean that as an assertion, thought I agree it was a prima facie assertion. I was just stating what I think to be very reasonable speculation. I can't imagine that all profession historians have a degree in history. I'm not inclined to research it right now, but maybe I will. But I don't know what it would prove. If your position is that you have a degree in history to be a professional historian, then if I point someone out that doesn't have a degree, then naturally your response would be that they're not a professional historian. So you're engaging in circular reasoning. Unless I've mistaken your position. So, let me ask you. Does one have to have a degree in history to be a professional historian? RJII 18:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of potential criteria for being considered a professional historian. These might include:

• Degree in history (ideally doctoral).
• Published in peer-reviewed historical journals.
• Professor of history at some university.
• Membership in a professional organization.
• Legal accreditation of some sort.

Irving appears to have none of these. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• • University professor does not add a lot of credibility in my mind.
  • Roger Garaudy In 1998, a French court found him guilty of Holocaust denial and racial defamation
  • David Irving Irving lost the case and was found to be a Holocaust denier by the court.
  • Harry Elmer Barnes - appears to need an article, but I don't find in a quick (~1 min search) that he said anything about the Holocaust.

Wikibofh 04:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Arthur Butz is an Electrical Engineering professor at Northwestern. He's on the editorial board of JHR.
  • Robert Faurisson is a literature professor. He believes the Holocaust is a hoax.
  • Found any actual historians yet, other than the completely discredited Irving? By the way, here's a useful resource. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

removal of NPOV tag

I'm not a regular to this article so forgive me if I'm rehashing stuff, but I happened to see the last edit and the removal of the NPOV tag, and I'm not really happy with

Holocaust deniers typically misuse or ignore historical records in order to attempt to prove their conclusions.

That's certainly the view of the majority, but I think this needs (at worst) weasel words and at best proper sourcing. I'm sure holocaust deniers don't see themselves as misusing or ignoring historical records. --fvw* 23:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we can work from the sentence the RJII offered and come up with a compromise?

"Several prominent Holocaust deniers have been found to willfully misuse and ignore historical records, 
going so far as to falsify them -- as in the case of David Irving. As a result, many conclude that that 
it is typical of Holocaust deniers to disregard proper historiographical methodology. It is commonly held 
that their research is at best tainted by an ideological selection bias, and at worst outright fraudulent."

I think it's too long and convulted myself. I'd prefer something much shorter. Something like:

The common belief among the public and historians is that Holcaust deniers research is, at best, 
tainted by a selection bias and at worst fraudlent. As in the case of David Irving
it has been shown that in some instances they have ignored historical records, willfully misused others
and even falsified documents.

Hmm...only a few words shorter, so I'm not sure. Fire away. Wikibofh 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Most Holocaust deniers style themselves as revisionists or historians.  
However, they have been shown to ignore and willfully misuse historical 
records and even falsify documents.  (See David Irving and 
Roger Garaudy).

Wikibofh 16:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Re RfC

I've stumbled upon this from the RfC. I've deliberately avoided reading the talk page so I'll probably only repeating other users, but anyway:

From the lead:

Holocaust denial refers to the claims of a small number of predominantly amateur historians and politically interested individuals and groups, who argue that the Holocaust did not occur as it is defined by mainstream historical science.

IMO the bolded part should be removed from that sentence, perhaps also from the lead. The statement may or may not be true, but isn't relevant to the defenition of Holocaust denial. You probably want to avoid the term amateur historian.

In general I think this article focus too much on the history rather than the claims of Holocaust denial. Even though you have a Holocaust denial examined sub page, you should at least give the major pros and cons of the various claims. Fornadan (t) 21:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The issue, though, is that Holocaust denial is false (RJII may argue over whether it is willfully false or simply mistaken, but it is false), and it is a very minority opinion which no professional historian subscribes to. Therefore, understanding who pushes this opinion is important to defining what it is, it is not just the belief, it is, in the words of the Yale Law Review a "pseudoscholarly" attempt by non-historians to push an anti-Semitic agenda. That needs to be reflected as well, it is like not mentioning that the Tabacco Insitute is funded by major cigarette companies in the lead. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Fornadan, what would you prefer those people to be referred to? You can't call them historians, since they are about as much historians as young earth creationists are scientists. Holocaust denial is quackery, plain and simple. It's nonsense at best, and hate propaganda at the worst. It IS relevant to point out that Holocaust Denial is a minority opinion of people who do not qualify as historians, even though they talk about history. You would not call astrologers scientists, after all. So, maybe one should just refer to them as politically interested groups and individuals? Because that's what it is all about really, it's not about history at all, it's about politics. Holocaust Denial is not a matter of historical science, but a matter of political propaganda.

Furthermore, since RJ's 'controversy' has been addressed, and the 'typically' removed, and the intro given a pretty damn balanced treatment, maybe we can remove the NPOV tag now? Straw-vote, please. Dietwald 17:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at the latest edits, I must agree that the article has become much better - so much so that I support the removal of the NPOV tag now. There are still a few places where I think a more correct wording could be used, but those are hardly of any importance, and can be dealt with at our leisure. I vote "remove". int19h 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hopefully, everyone's reasonable concerns have been addressed. Remove, of course. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• That's fine. Though I'm still not satisfied with one or two things in the intro, it is much improved. The main thing for me was "willfully." That was way POV. RJII 21:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

my, oh my. Ok. glad to hear this. Let' think about it for some more time, and when I come back from my weekend -- and it's still there -- I'll remove it... unless there are objections by then.... Dietwald 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another attempt to separate "revisionism" from "denial"

Using some of the text that had previously been entered into this entry, I've taken a stab at an article describing the difference between "Holocaust revisionism" (the use of genuine historical fact to correct historical errors concerning the Holocaust) and "holocaust denial" (the conspiracy theory that the Holocaust never happened). Take a look at Holocaust revisionism/worksheet and feel free to take part. --Modemac 13:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well, neither of the examples you cite are anything reasonably entitled "Holocaust revisionism". Correcting mistakes in the historical record is what historians do. You are correct that Holocaust deniers twist the work of historians to their own ends -- which is exactly what the article says. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, Modemac, your current version - while I personally agree with the sentiments - has several problems:

a) it would start the whole NPOV debate again, I am sure RJ and some of the others would agree on this.

b) it would, as jpgordon correctly pointed out, obfusicate the distinction between genuine historical research and denialims.

An interesting note, by the way: has anybody ever noticed that historians actually don't use the term 'revisionist' to describe themselves? I have the feeling it is more often than not used disparingly by those who subscribe to a main-stream historical view to describe those who do not. Particularly obvious in the historiographical discussion on the Soviet Union. Revisionist is a term used to describe those historians who believe that Stalin was actually less totalitarian then most historians believe, or that he actually killed less people (though, this line of argument frequently degrades into denialism). It seems that bona fide historians try to avoid the term revisionism for themselves, while quacks like to assume it. It's just a note on the side, maybe it's useless or wrong, but it's just an observation I made over the years, and this discusson kind of crystalized the idea in my head. Dietwald 17:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Dietwald, and, although your effort is well-written, I don't think there is alot of confusion between Daniel Goldhagen (who might be termed a "revisionist" in the classical sense) and the Institute for Historical Review, so I am not sure if we need to open this can of worms. People who would be called revisionists in normal historical fields just aren't given that label in the studies of the Holocaust because of the muddying of the waters caused by Holocaust denial. And revisionist is usually an outside label in any case. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This page needs to be moved to Holocaust revisionism

Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Identity:

"Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self identification). This can mean calling an individual the term they use, or calling a group the term most widely used by that group."

Sam Spade 00:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should quote the sentence right before that: "However, here are some non-binding guidelines that may help." I hardly think this "non-binding guideline" compels us to use a label that was designed to be purposefully misleading and which is almost universally rejected among serious scholars as an attempt to whitewash Holocaust denial. This article (and the talk page) explains in great detail why calling Holocaust denial is the most NPOV approach, and, to quote from the same section of the manual of style: "Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies always take precedence." --Goodoldpolonius2 00:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A separate Holocaust revisionism article could be created, instead of moving this one. RJII 00:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is one. It redirects to here, as is proper. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to direct here. RJII 01:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No; "holocaust revisionism" could be treated as something distinct from "holocaust denial". Except it isn't. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I'll create it then to see if you're right. No better incentive than being told that it's not doable. RJII 02:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Have fun. Did you look in the discussion right above here, where Modemac is trying exactly that? I didn't say it's not doable; I could do it right now. "Holocaust revisionism" -- a term used by Holocaust deniers to refer to their methodology." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that I will. The subject doesn't really interest me one way or the other. I just happened to come across some very POV stuff that needed to be addressed. Maybe if I was a "Holocaust denier" I'd be more into it. I'm probably winding down here. RJII 03:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Typical wikipedia. Just because we don't have a flat earther handy, NPOV is violated. Sam Spade 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

call-demand strategies and information-gathering

The attention accorded this topic has been initiated from 'encyclopediast territory' and was at first the simple results from subject/respondent replies about the fires during the San Francisco [CA U. S. A.] 1906 earthquake. 'Denial' was somewhat cavalierly used to describe the reaction of people who know/knew nothing about the historical earthquake scenario; as a psychological term, it was then quite logically transferred to the topical domains of 'cremation' and 'death-during-fires'.

The effort also alludes to the use of tobacco to burn off intes-tinal effluent, and the perhaps predictable incidence of destructive fires which result therefrom. Targeted with a call-demand methodological strategy demonstrated in the manner of an inquisition, those lacking on-site experience or personal eye-witness accounts of the German concentration camp debacles truthfully denied any knowledge or participation in the events [both as an alleged mass murder or as a holocaust].

There is some reason to believe that camp-dwellers were being recruited and confined so as to engage in some kind of public works or product-development schemes, and that coercive pressure or inexperience contributed to digestive problems in-formally characterized as 'gas'/gastrointestinal disfunction. While historical photographs affirm the existence of crematory equipment within the German concentration camps investigated, there is no reason to believe that chloroform or some other type of gas was used to deliberately kill the in-mates. Beadtot 10/19/2005 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that "some other type of gas" was used to deliberately kill the victims -- Zyklon-B, for instance. This is one of the topics that holocaust deniers have been trying to assert, and despite all of of their whining they have yet to prove their case that "gas was not used to kill Jews." --Modemac 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Ignore the gibberish-troll. Check the edits of beadtot (talk · contribs). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The human body when stressed produces a variety of noxious gases which are offensive to other creatures. Also, for those who believe that "Jews" may have been deliberately gassed, see the Wikipedia comment titled 'Abrahamic mythology', which describes the roles of the people of God sometimes opposed by the people of Abraham. Beadtot 10/19/2005 00:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

beadtot, just because you hate jews has nothing to do with the topic on hand. I can't find any comment entitled 'Abraham mythology' but Abraham lived around 2000+ years before the holocaust so it is irrelevent, if by it however you are trying to justify killing jews then why would you deny that they were indeed killed? Point is that the holocaust actually did happen and people who deny this fact are Holocaust deniers. It doesn't even matter if they were killed by gas or some other means, the fact that the nazi german military/goverment systamatically killed around 11 million (only about half were jews) is a proven fact.

And beadtot, you say that 'Jews may have been deliberately gassed' do you mean to imply that they were gassed accidentally? Also why is "Jews" in quotation marks? Do you not believe that jews exsist either? This is an encyclopedia, it is meant to be based on facts not on supporting an agenda.

The artical is not NPOV either. I really dont see what is wrong with calling people who dispute the events of the holocaust as holocaust deniers. T-rex 18:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that "jew-hating" is the issue to be presented in the encyclopedia(s). I believe the actual issue concerns 'accommodation' of the Jews in Germany, or possibly an issue about Germans who may have attempted to convert to Judaism so as to move themselves into a warmer climate -- an issue as old as the hills themselves. That a concentration of actual Jews was admitted to participate within the German nation, or that some concentration of Germans tried to emulate Jewish mannerisms and customs, would present ethical quandaries anywhere.

As example, the United States has a sizeable population of people who strive to identify with Jewish customs and beliefs although there is no territorial overlap with any EurAsian nation. That real Jews would hate Germany during any first generation in Europe would undoubtably earn them some enemies as immigrants, but a failure/refusal to adapt is a much more credible scenario -- in terms of diet, freedom of movement, or social acceptance -- certainly more credible than deliberate and intentional genocide. 11/12/2005Beadtot 08:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, with reference to descriptions of the effects and phenomena resulting from exposure to the content imagery of an oracle bead chronicle, there is some reason to believe that people carrying a historical image of EurAsia in their brains, as transmitted from the bead chronicle, were perhaps being routed through England into Germany with the intention to return them to their assumed homeland, or to plant them in EurAsia so as to gather information encyclopedia-style. If all the action was not their own choice in life, then of course they died. 11/13/2005 04:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC) beadtot

This article is scary

Re: Request for comment

I do not think that Nazi hate has its place on the internet, especially a somewhat legitimate reference site such as this. My jaw nearly dropped after seeing some of this! Why is this entire article written in a casual tone? Then there is the fact that it quotes horrible neo-nazi propganda like general encyclopedic facts, and gives reference to damn neonazi literature. Links to websites denying the Holocaust? I'm wondering how the editors of this article found this hate-propaganda out? The tools that holocaust deniers use to manipulate people should not be here. The problem with wikipedia is people like neo-nazis or paedophiles are free to edit at will. Why hasn't this article been flagged?! Even looking in the talk page, there are people trying to spread hate, one guy who has apperently done thousands of edits wants this article renamed "Holocaust Revisionism"? Why does the sinister underbelly of the internet have such free reign here?

Maybe this is trivial to some people here, but some of us have relatives who died in the holocaust, and that should be respected.

This article must be deleted, or rewritten without the step-by-step guide on how to spread hate.--Sansvoix 02:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Simpy put, you think wrong. Wikipedia policy is about representing the facts and various points of view; it's not a propaganda web site and should not reflect anyone's personal view. That is why we have articles on Holocaust denial, Neo-nazism, White supremacism etc. On a side note, since you mention pedophiles - have you seen articles such as Childlover? They exist, and they are there for the same reason. If they offend you, you have a freedom of restraining yourself from reading them, which you're welcome to excercise. Free reign is the founding principle on which Wikipedia is built - as long as it is factual and NPOV, it goes in, regardless of whether it offends someone or not. If you have any specific issues with either factuality or NPOV'ness of this article, please state them. int19h 04:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sansvoix, the main difference between the principles of the Open Society and the principles of its enemies are that in an Open Society, there is no ban on information. The slogan of Wikipedia is "information wants to be free" -- and whether the founders of wikipedia know it or not, they have thereby committed wikipedia to one of the most powerful and revolutionary ideas in the world, the Open Society. You ask for something that goes against this principle. You want to limit information based on your tastes. It may come as a shock to you, but this is an attitude that is actually very similar to the people you seem to dislike so much. Think about this. Your intentions may be good, but your advocated means defy the purpose. Dietwald 06:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a 'movement'! It does not deserve to be described as such! I do not see how you people can sleep at night after encouraging the spreading of criminal messages! Do you consider that example of 'childlove' to be a casual social 'movement' as well? If someone wrote an article 'Techniques of rape' would that be OK as it is a product of the 'open socity?' This is not my personal taste, it is the simple fact that hate should not be spread, no matter what the means of communication. People have died because of the things said in this article! This article should at least focus on the criminal aspect of holocaust denial, and take a respectful tone for the millions murdered. Would you go out in the real world and say holocaust deniers deserve to spread their so-called information? You think this is a 'powerful and revolutionary', but do you want this revolution built on the filth of humanity! --Sansvoix 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sanvoix -- if somebody published an article "techniques of rape" I'd be fine with it, provided the article is purely factual and does not actually advocate rape. In fact, I would consider that a worthwhile project, since it could help some women (or men) who believe they may have been the victims of a rape to confirm their suspicion -- or realize they were not in fact raped, but 'merely' molested.

Another point, I am not sure what you mean by saying that people have died because of what is said in this article. I am not aware of anybody being killed by Holocaust Deniers -- individually, they tend to be a rather agreeable bunch: almost everybody who has met Zundel, for example, would agree that he is actually quite entertaining if you get past the fact that his opinions are quite dangerous.

Your opposition against this article is based on your personal taste -- vide your comment regarding the 'respectful tone' for the millions murdered. I personally consider this article to be very respectful of the victims of the Holocaust. After all, it makes it quite clear that Holocaust denial is little more than anti-semitism dressing up as historiography.

And, yes, Sansvoix, I do support the right of Holocaust deniers to publicly voice their opinions. I also think I have the right to call the anti-semites, liars, and morons. As long as I am allowed to criticise them, they should be allowed to voice their opinions, no matter how distasteful I find them.

By the same token, I defend the rights of anti-abortionists to voice their ideas, even though I think they are morons as well. But -- I value the benefits of the Open Society more than I value my offended sensibilities. I also support the rights of Marxists to voice their stupidities in public, even those who defend Stalin -- because I allow myself to call them morons Dietwald 17:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sansvoix, as you can see in the discussions above, I agree with you that Holocaust denial is toxic and distasteful, but, at the same time, there are two philosophies for dealing with this: suppression or direct conflict. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has tried the first approach ("hate should not be spread" in your words), pushing to remove sites that contain Holocaust denial, etc. but it never seemed to work, in that there were always more sites springing up, and nobody bothered to address their lies, making them seem legitimate. The Nizkor project, as one example, takes the other, addressing the false claims of Holocaust denial head-on to show how ridiculous they are, which has generally proven effective. Wikipedia's philosophy means that it is more in the second camp, addressing rather than suppressing topics. At the same time, it is, of course, important to make sure that the article shows that Holocaust denial is false, and primarily an anti-Semitic fig leaf, but I think that the article does do that. Perhaps you can propose some language on the "criminal apsects of holocaust denial"?--Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This artical exsists because some people actually are neo-nazis and deny that the holocaust ever took place. The artical itself, mainly talks about how these claims are untrue and doesn't give them much support at all (which is appropriate considering that the claims are unfounded and untrue). Yet because it is a movement that really does exsist it is worth getting mentioned on wikipedia. --T-rex 03:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Trying to silence all discussion of a conspiracy theory is a good way to convince people that there really is a conspiracy and that we're trying to hide something. If someone says the Holocaust never happened, the correct response is "Yes, it jolly well did happen, and here's the proof," not "La la la la, I can't hear you!" Pterodactyler 16:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Changes by Sansvoix

Sansvoix,

Goodoldpolonius2 correctly reverted your changes as they were far too substantial to be tolerated without prior discussion. In addition, numerous points you made were factually wrong. Hate Crimes do NOT include the denial of the holocaust -- you seem to misunderstand what a Hate Crime is: a hate crime is a normal criminal act that is motivated by hatred of a specific group (defined differently in different countries). Since publishing stupidities is NOT a crime in any country I know of, claiming the holocaust did not happen is not a hate crime. Some countries have defined Holocaust Denial as a crime of itself, but no country with hate-crime legislation automatically considers denying the holocaust to be a hate crime.

in addition, the Lipstadt book is NOT an example of holocaust denial, hence it's cover should not be at the top of the page.

Further, Nizcor is NOT an example of holocaust denial.

Please refrain from further edits until you have cleared them with the community. If further edits by you are of the same nature as the previous ones, they WILL be reverted. Dietwald 17:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In Canada and Western Europe, Holocaust deniers have been successfully prosecuted under racial defamation or hate crimes laws.

In Canada? No way. Zundel got whacked by the False News law, which was later declared unconstitutional. Since then, the state left him alone because he did not commit anything anybody in Canada could call criminal according to Canadian law. Most people thought he was pretty un-Canadian -- but, that's also no crime in Canada. Provide reference to even ONE person who was prosecuted in Canada because of their Holocaust Denial. You'll find none. Western Europe: only in countries that explicitely ban HD have deniers been prosecuted. They are alive and well in Britain, for example (unless they seek to claim libel if someone calls their bluff, in which case they got whacked by the courts). Do your researchDietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In the United States, however, the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of political content. Nonetheless, though the First Amendment guarantees Holocaust deniers the right to produce and distribute their propaganda, it in no way obligates newspapers or other media outlets to provide them with a forum for their views. [7]

My point is not factually wrong, not everyone runs under the same rules as the US. I was considering mentioning that the United States was the big standout... but i couldn't figure out how to do that without sounding 'anti-american', or POV.

There is no legitimate reason not to accept my changes. Some of the stuff on there was (is) boarderline defending holocaust deniers! I am simply editing it into a style reflecting the general POV of the public. --Sansvoix 18:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, was it really necessary to revert ALL of my changes? I put a fair amount of work on there, and i did discuss my issues before hand.

you did not discuss, you barged in here, complained, waved your hands and then went ahead to do the changes. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are some excerpts from the way the article was before I edited it:

Many Jews protest that Holocaust denial trivializes the suffering caused to victims of the Holocaust when it juxtaposes it with accounts of the Germans (most estimates are 500,000 to 2 million, but some Holocaust deniers put the figure as high as 10 million) who died of starvation and from Russian violence immediately after WWII. They feel this is an attempt to make the Germans feel they don't deserve full blame for the war crimes of the Nazis, on the basis that the Soviets, British, and Americans committed similar war crimes without repercussions. This position is based on the work of James Bacque, Ernst Mayo, and others.

and what is the problem with this?Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In the Middle East, the Syrian government, as well as the Palestinian Authority have published and promoted Holocaust denial literature. These works are best sellers in many Arab nations.(no reference)

The book "did 10 million really die" is the introduction of this article, (rather than the book critical of bastards)

It's did 6 Million really die", not ten. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

All I am doing it conforming this article to standards appropriate to an encycolpedia. I'm pretty sure you can see that. But what am I supposed to do, as there is an army of you guys willing to revert any changes I make of that 'nature'? You are not only hurting wikipedia, you are turning it into something dangerous--Sansvoix 18:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, as per request, this helps explain what I've been doing with this article:

I'm trying to implement a respectful tone, changing wording and casual writing styles, for example the line contrasting the views of the Holocaust Deniers with reality where neccesary, and in a couple cases, deleting areas which are gratuitous (not working to inform the reader) and/or things generally considered inappropriate, such as the list of claims backing up Holocaust denial. An example of the kinds of things I changed: much of the controversy surrounding the claims of Holocaust deniers centers upon the methods used to present arguments... (which I changed to Outrage surrounds the claims Holocaust deniers use to persuade others that the Holocaust never happened....)

Outrage? is that necessary? there are people who are not outraged by holocaust denial, merely annoyed, or sometimes amused. IT's a pretty strong word, and it serves no purpose here except to push a point of view. Besides, outrage is such a lame reaction to holocaust denial, it makes those opposing holocaust denial look prissy. Besides... your version of the sentence actually says something completely different: you say people are outraged that somebody accuses holocaust deniers of being holocaust deniers. Check your semantics. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed that because, if taken to the full extent, it seems to suggest that if Holocaust deniers change their 'methods used to present arguments', much of the controversy surrounding their claims would go away. Infact, that idea is gone into further detail with the paragraphs around 'holocaust revisionism'. I made similar edits there as well. Furthermore, words such as 'controversy' and 'arguments' are just a little disrespectfull when talking about Holocaust denial.

Hm. it is a controversy, last time i checked. Holocaust deniers also use arguments, though i admit they are bad ones. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

actually, IF the holocaust deniers would arrive at their conclusions through proper research methods, their activities would not be offensive. IF, for example, somebody would actually show we DO live in an hollow earth, there would be no problem with that. IF proper historical research would show the Holocaust did indeed not take place then we would not be dealing with Holocaust Denial, but with a major revision of the historical record. The point is not that holocaust deniers say the holocaust did not happen. The point is that they do so despite the evidence. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm beggining to understand that many editors of this article have nothing but good ambitions, but you have to understand you can't write an article on Holocaust Denial, like you would right about say, the animal rights movement, where both sides have equal say. That said, I'm not saying that this article should simply be a condemnation of Holocaust Denial (though that has its place here...). To me this is an issue of respectfully examining the things Holocaust deniers, do, and have done.

Think about this. There is actually a paragraph starting off with 'Many Jews protest'. Sure weasily lines like 'many ____ protest' is, should I say, standard wikipedia, do you really think this kind of language (which is seen throughout the article) is respectful to the gravity of this situation?--Sansvoix 03:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sansvoix, could you do us ALL a favour and read the previous discussions first??????Dietwald 04:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll read 112 kilobytes of text after you aknowlege I have a valid point, and help me take the insult out of this article!--Sansvoix 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So, what you are telling us is that you don't care what the consensus on this page is and how it came about. That the current version of the article is the result of some very pain-staking discussions over the last few weeks. You just come here and want to push your point of view with complete disregard for the process.

To make it utterly clear: it is totally irrelevant to this article whether or not the opinions of the Holocaust deniers are offensive (they are). It would also be irrelevant if people would get killed regularly because of Holocaust denial (though it would be worth mentioning). Your problem is that you don't like Holocaust denial (who does?) and that you want the article to make that clear (it should not). Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You don't have a valid point, though. You must get acquainted with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It's hardest when writing about the enemy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I can not believe that the policy compleatly applies here! That said, I tried to keep my edits NPOV ...This article can still have its tone changed following NPOV policies to the letter. Another wikipedia policy needs to be applied here as well: Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms.--sansvøix 08:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We know you cannot believe that WP:NPOV applies here. That's why we keep trying to explain to you that it does. It's a universal for Wikipedia, and a non-negotiable one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why change the tone? It makes it pretty clear that holocaust denial is bogus history. What more do you want? IF you want to say that holocaust deniers are nasty people, you better prove that - many of them are rather pleasant fellows, actually. IF you want to say that holocaust deniers are criminals, you better prove it. Outside the countries where Holocaust denial is explicitely prohibited, they are not considered criminals, merely morons. Dietwald 08:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Irving

Just passing through. I think you need to change the comment about David Irving being found guilty of falsifying historical documents. This creates the impression he is involved in fraud, which is not true. And also suggests he was found guilty by a judge which is not true unless in some obscure matters relating to Canadian immigration law. Perhaps a more correct and neutral comment would be: in an unsuccessful libel case taken by David Irving the judge ruled that while a noted historian in military history Irving was prone to knowingly distort historical source documents to suit an agenda of holocaust denial. Clumsy but more accurate, what is written at the moment is simply incorrect.139.80.123.38 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)just passing through

• OK, I've changed it slightly. He was shown in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents. He wasn't found guilty of it; you're correct there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

He was found guilty of "Holocaust denial" . The whole point is that most countries regard holocaust denial as a crime, and anyone who raises any questions is thus s criminal.

No, he was not found "guilty" of Holocaust denial, but rather was found to have committed it. He was not convicted of anything at all. Please try to remember, it was Irving who brought the case against Lipstadt, not the other way around. She called him a Holocaust denier, he sued her for libel, and he lost because he was found to have lied and falsified, and was, in fact, a Holocaust denier. That is the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

U said Government?

In the Middle East, the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as the Palestinian Authority have published and promoted Holocaust denial literature. These works are best sellers in many Arab nations.

Sorry,

I have added braces in the article because you have involved the syrian government ( I mean the government itself ) in HD publications. I am new on wikipedia and my english is quite poor, so excuse me for being rude and for my lack of practice in posting/editing. Anyway, you have involved the syrian government in HD publications and accusing a government is not a light matter. If you cannot give proofs , give at least verifiable sources and references ( intellectual honesty vs defamation ). Notice that I am not rejecting that HD literracy is published or even produced in Syria (like in the USA or in Israel). I understand that proving that a government is involved in a lambda event is not an easy thing... but with books that are moreover supposed to be best sellers... we can bet on finding somes clues and links. When a government want to spread books published by itself over his own population for a huge propaganda: We can at least do some backtracking of the media paper...no?

I hope you understod something to my broken english. :-(

Sincerly.

Gibreel, oops :-P hum only registered in the french version...

Sansvoix

Sansvoix, please do not make major changes to this article without consensus. Discuss the changes you want to make, and work them gradually into the article. Everyone, please work to achieve concensus. Please contact me or any other administrator if you need assistance. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Responding to Request for Comment

Despite the vigorous debate on this discussion page, I find the article admirably neutral. If anything it treats the subject too gently.

Regarding the denial/revisionist debate I have a comment. Among historians, a revisionist approach means the evaluation of primary source material using accepted methodologies to expose and correct previous oversights. This is different from fringe scholarship which ignores standard methodologies in the interest of justifying some partisan viewpoint. True revisionist historians earn a measure of respect within the academic community even when some of their ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Fringe scholarship rarely publishes in the academic press, preferring to appeal to the ignorant. This holds true across a variety of topics.

When holocaust deniers call themselves revisionist they are attempting to appropriate a level of legitimacy they haven't earned.

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. -Abraham Lincoln

Durova 20:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What is a 'Jew', though? Such an individual or group must certainly be different from a 'Judean". 11/12/2005Beadtot 08:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Per Rfc : seems perfectly sane to me .I'm almost ashamed to say , though , that all I'd think of changing is the word deniers . I think denialists would be better . Deniers deny , but denialists adhere to denial . Ad hominem on WP , made against my particular notices of denial (here on WP ) suggest my writing to be all kinda shite . But .... it seems stronger denialist , and more logical , and as per mathematics - more beautiful (hence my shame) . I come across people in denial . Sure they deny this and they deny that , but are ,over-all , in denial of something . So the generality is here of holocaust denial , whose adherents are denialists . Rfc=NPOV .

EffK 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image of the book that is a cornerstone of the Holocaust denial is appropriate, and IMO, not "highly offensive". I've rolled back that edit so that it is back in the article. If there is disagreement, please discuss here first. Wikibofh 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I have only discovered the existence Holocause Revisionism this year, despite being in my late 50s. I have had enough problems overcoming racist comments such as Nazi, since I was a small child. The fact that my mother was born in Germany has made my life hell! Yet, I cannot claim German Nationality. My mother lost her German nationality the moment she married my father in an English church! This means that when I was born she was not a German so I could not be either. What made this worse was I was not classed as a full English citizen either because I was denied certain jobs, e.g. working in the Home Office as a civil servant, because one of my parents had not been born in Britain. Even worse is the fact that those who married like my mother but did so AFTER 1953 kept their German nationality so their children were able to claim German and British citizenship. You may be wondering why I am mentioning this, but the point is that many facts are not made public knowledge, and what facts are there can be altered if further information comes to light. Those who are prepared to look again at the Holocause have a right to do so, and if they come up against anomolies then it is up to those who supported the original Holocaust claim to properly argue against it with other facts, not try to demonise the person who found the anomoly. One other fact I think you should know is that my mother's father died in a concentration camp in 1940 after having been there for only 3 weeks. Why he died I don't know, but he may have been treated similar to the others who died in the gas chambers. No-one can tell me the truth on this matter. My grandparents were of German descent but were born and married in Poland. During WWI my grandfather had to fight for Poland against Germany, who were enemies, especially as Poland was under the jurisdiction of Russia, another enemy of Germany. My grandmother, along with many others in her village, were regularly hounded and bullied by other Poles and forced out of the village. My grandmother was forced to become a refugee and escape to Germany, and all the while her husband was fighting against Germans on Poland's behalf!!!!! Later he was injured in the war and invalided out and he followed his wife into Germany. Strange how life is, and does anyone ever know all the facts? Is the information given to us ALL that is available? My father was stateless when he died, and you may be sympathetic towards the situation, but there is another piece of information which would enlighten you. In 1932 he was arrested as a paedophile, and sent to prison for 5 years. This ended in 1939 but he never returned home to his family as was moved from camp to camp - something that was not supposed to happen but did! He was also made stateless for 10 years, and this was also imposed in my grandmother even though she was not tried for anything - all because she was married to him. Her life and my mother's was very difficult throughout the 30s, and although my mother did everything she could to help the allies at the end of the war, becoming an interpreter for the REME, and falling in love with a British soldier, it took a lot of courage and determination to remain alive during the war years. She was not aware of any Holocause throughout her time there, and still can't be sure. Both she and I would welcome any information regarding the way people were treated in the camps. It may bring truth to light about my grandfather's death there. As the official line can't enlighten me on this fact, perhaps the Holocause Revisionists can do so. At least they are prepared to look into the matter. Carol

Mel Mermelstein

Could someone here have a look at the recent changes to the Mel Mermelstein article? I'm suspicious of some of the info added to the article. Gamaliel 17:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

"It is legitimate to argue that the Holocaust was the unintentional consequence of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi regime. However, even IF this were the case, the Nazi government would still bear the moral responsibility for actions committed by its officials."

It is not Wikipedia's place to itself argue what is legitimate or illigitimate, or where moral responsibility lies. The above section should be included as an expert's opinion. It sounds like the writer's own response to the claims mentioned above.

"Holocaust deniers make all or most of the following claims:"

So if someone makes just four out of nine claims they are not a holocaust denier? Surely if someone argued that the claim 3, the number of 5-6 million is too high and actually 100,000 they are a holocaust denier. I think it should say "Holocaust deniers commonly assert some of the following" or a statement along those lines, that is free from a generalisation that detracts from the article's credibility. --Constan69 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

recent changes

Please refrain from adding the reference to catholics etc. First of all, there was no systematic prosecution of Catholics as such -- Hitler was Catholic, and so were and are most people in southern Germany. Catholics were in fact more ardent supporters of Hitler than Protestants. In any case, *the* Holocaust refers to the prosecution and killing of Jews. IF you don't like that, take your complaint to the Holocaust page. This whole topic is about the Jews, and the Holocaust Deniers are hung up about the Jews, not Catholics. Dietwald 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. I also added Roma people: as the Jews they were singled out for "extermination". Not sure who denies that though. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

From the Holocaust page: "The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of various ethnic, religious and political groups during World War II by Nazi Germany and collaborators. Early elements of the Holocaust include the Kristallnacht pogrom and the T-4 Euthanasia Program, progressing to the later use of killing squads and extermination camps in a massive and centrally-organized effort to murder every possible member of the populations targeted by the Nazis."

Thus, *the* Holocaust, according to wikipedia (and oh boy, has that wording been fought over), wasn't only about Jews, it was fairly wide-ranging in scope... jews, homosexuals, communists, intelligentsia, Roma, the handicapped, the mentally ill, etc.

I think Catholics were perhaps initially added as an example (maybe somewhat poorly, because while catholics and protestants were targets, it wasn't *because* of their religion or ethnicity), to note that some Holocaust deniers seek to minimize or deflect the scope of the Holocaust by saying that it was limited to only a few groups, or a few kinds of people (i.e., "just Jews", or "just jews and Roma", or "just communists who happened to be jewish").

Perhaps we can come up with better text that could both emphasize the wide ranging nature of the Holocaust (without eliminating any specific peoples who were targeted, because that caused no end of edit wars on the Holocaust page (see Roma being added above)), and at the same time, will also manage to address the rather peculiar focus on Jews that Holocaust deniers seem to have? Ronabop 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added what Holocaust deniers DON'T deny back into the article. Previous commentary said it was removed "since it is not universal, and does not reveal the caveats associated". But the article clearly says "most", and the points were taken directly off a denier website. If there are any deniers that disagree with these points, let them speak for themselves. Falcon91Wolvrn03 11:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem

I have no problem with the section on examination of Holocaust denial being split. I do think that it has been very poorly summarised. This has lead to an unbalanced article. I expect to see refutations of this stupidity in this article. Currently there aer not really many at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Arrests and Suits

There should be a section on the international roundup of Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel, Seigfried Verbeke and David Irving as well as the suit now pending against LePen. Jim Bowery 01:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Given the, um...incinderary nature of this article, I would suggest you draft something up here in talk to make sure it looks good for the main article. Wikibofh 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the most important thing is to document the fact that "holocaust denial" is not only in criminal laws of various nations but that it's definition is being established in court preceent. Something like this: German citizens Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zundel were deported from the United States, which has no laws against "holocaust denial" and will stand trial in Germany for the crime of "holocaust denial". German Seigfried Verbeke was extradited from Belgium for trial in Germany. David Irving was arrested in Vienna, Austria, on suspicion of having engaged in "holocaust denial" in the late 1980s. Their court cases are pending. These court precedents will establish the working legal definition of "holocaust denial" as a crime. Jim Bowery 20:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To avoid original research, could you provide us with some external sources indicating that "its definition is being established by court precedent"? I can't really tell which courts you are referring to; Zündel and Rudolf weren't deported from the US for holocaust denial in particular -- Rudolf was convicted and sentenced for that crime in Germany, and the US (per US law) deported him as a convicted criminal; Zündel outstayed his visa. I don't know if the issue of holocaust denial per se came up in the hearings; plenty of people get booted out for outstaying their visas, especially nowadays; and anyone convicted of a crime in Germany who fled before incarceration would get the same treatment here as Rudolf. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, oficially, Zundel was deported to Canada because he had overstayed his visa in the US. AFAIK, he had also violated the minimum residency requirement Canada has for landed immigrants. So, the US deportation to Canada was actually run of the mill, Canada's reaction to his violation of the minimum residency requirement, however, could be considered as a little opportunistic. There is no rule in Canada that says you WILL be send home packing to your country of origin if you do not spend the required time in Canada, but there is a rule that says you can get send home packing. Now, I think Canada has long considered Zundel an embarassment, and has been only to happy to get this opportunity. However, Holocaust denial as such never came up during the hearings. He got booted as a threat to national security due to some of the folks he usted to hang out with every once in while (violently inclined white-supremacist criminal groups). This was also the reason his application for citizenship some time ago was denied, if I remember correctly. So, in short, the man was sent home to Germany for being stupid (overstaying your visa in the US has well-known consequences, violating well-known immigration law requirements of a government that would be only too happy to get rid of you is also pretty dumb)Dietwald 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a seperate entry for the section "Other genocide denials"?

Just as there is a seperate article for the phenomenon of Genocide in general - with a discussion of definitions, examples and border-line cases - so there should also be a separate article that deals with policies of official denial and "Truth and Reconciliation" policies (including apologies, monuments/museums, education and sometimes even financial compensation) that some states have resorted to after they have abandoned policies of denial or innocence of extermination, forced removal or slavery. This is a development that has been witnessed in many countries, including Australia, Germany, Cambodia and Brazil. --Big Adamsky 16:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find it here: historical revisionism (political) User:Kaliz

Thanks for advising! Big Adamsky 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

U said Government?

In the Middle East, the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as the Palestinian Authority have published and promoted Holocaust denial literature. These works are best sellers in many Arab nations.

Sorry,

You have involved the syrian government ( I mean the government itself ) in HD publications. I am new on wikipedia and my english is quite poor, so excuse me for being rude and for my lack of practice in posting/editing. Anyway, you have involved the syrian government in HD publications and accusing a government is not a light matter. If you cannot give proofs , give at least verifiable sources and references ( intellectual honesty vs defamation ). Notice that I am not rejecting that HD literracy is published or even produced in Syria (like in the USA or in Israel). I understand that proving that a government is involved in a lambda event is not an easy thing... but with books that are moreover supposed to be best sellers... we can bet on finding somes clues and links. When a government want to spread books published by itself over his own population for a huge propaganda: We can at least do some backtracking of the media paper...no?

To sum up my point : Moderate your assumptions ... as far as you are not providing verifiable sources : you are defaming the syrian government and the palestinan authority.

I hope you understod something to my broken english. :-(

Sincerly.

You have a fair point, but you cannot deface articles because you feel it is lacking a piece of relevant information. Remember, we already ask people to cross-check facts instead of accepting everything on Wikipedia at face value. Instead, issues should always be raised on the talk page in the form of a request, or alternatively, you can source a comment yourself. If you believe it is irretrievably biased you can insert an NPOV tag. In this case I concur that it was wrong for those comments to be unsourced, though a tiny bit of work would demonstrate the correctness of the point to even the most casual observer. I have added a reference for Syrian, Iranian and Palestinian holocaust denial. Feel free to update with alternatives if you feel them to give a better overview of the situation. Also, please try to sign your statements. --Davril2020 14:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • However, per the inline citations style they also need to be included in full form in a reference section. I would look at adding them myself, but I suspect it's not wise to do from work, where accessing those sites can be problematic.

Note that no matter which inline-citation system is used, all the sources used in an article should be listed at the end in a references section.

Wikibofh 14:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added the references inline now. I've never done it before so there may be errors in my presentation, but I've added them all to the references section under 'about deniers'. --Davril2020 17:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Reformulation needed

Dear Davril2020

I am the guy with the broken english... :)) Thank u for your inline-citation additions and for the clear and humble explanations u posted in the current disscussion board. But for the sake of neutrality I still find important to reformulate the paragraph in its explicit implications and that according to the sources you provided.

-- recap :

" In the Middle East, the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as the Palestinian Authority have published and promoted Holocaust denial literature [3][4][5]. These works are best sellers in many Arab nations. " source [3] refers to the syrian part source [4] refers to the iranian part source [5] refers to the palestinian part --

In source [5] from the ICT we can read that the palestinian groups incriminated in HD by Reuven Paz (the ICT Academic Director) is the Hamas : " Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) has recently published a denial of the Jewish Holocaust on its official website. Although Hamas often uses anti-Jewish phrases, this publication marks the first time the organization has officially denied the Holocaust. " The Hamas is not the Palestinian authority! The Palestinian Authority is the legitime government of the Palestians and it is a laic, the Hamas is a political/military/religious/more? group. Is the Front National of Jean-Marie Lepen the representative of the French state? /* nb: In the early stages of its creation , the Hamas was also benefiting from the israeli government secret funds to counter the FATAH legitimacy among the palestinian opinion ...but that is another story  : Out of subject.

• /

MORE IMPORTANT THE SOURCE [5] STATES THE FOLLOWING : " The Islamic establishment of the PA, headed by Shaykh 'Ikrimah Sabri, has taken a strong anti-Jewish tone, but it has so far not been accompanied by a denial of the Holocaust."

CONCLUSION : THE SOURCES GIVEN ARE INFIRMING THE STATEMENT !!!

Is this source a pro-palestinan, antisemitic or negationist one? No it is a pro-israeli, 'prosemitic' (sorry for the word but jewish is not the antonym of antisemitic... ) and antirev one!!!

I am going to reformulate the paragraph in a neutral/non-political way :

" In the Middle East, individuals from the Syrian and Iranian government, as well as Palestinian political groups (Hamas) have published and promoted Holocaust denial statements [3][4][5]. "

As Best-Sellers are more ore less paper books and not website like in source [5] or newspapers like in source [4], I am erasing "These works are best sellers".

Feel yourself welcome for any correction..Especially because of my poor writing in english! But please do not revert without explanations!!!

Sincerly yours.

Thanks for the recap. If somebody can provide best-seller links (or even sales info, so we can discuss what a "best seller" is, and isn't), that might be helpful. I would also encourage you to make a wikipedia account, so you are not an anonymous IP address, as many anonymous IP edits get reverted without much consideration. Ronabop 09:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

---

done!

Thank u for your fairness... Just a remarq : I hate hypercritiscm because it is a shortcut to denial. I hope that my poor formulation is not misleading... bye --Another gibreel 09:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure that calling "Hamas" a "political organization" is anymore accurate or unbiased then calling Al Queda a "political organization". To, as Wikipedia does, disambiguate what I am saying: Hamas is a recognized terrorist organization, speaking of which I am starting a new article: Terrorism denial if anyone is interested. --Nonymous-raz 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting arcticle idea, Nonymous-raz, I'll watchlist it, and wait for people to discuss Irgun ;-) . I think the main problem with giving large or diverse organizations a single label is that such short labels miss the scope of multipurpose organizations. HAMAS builds schools and hospitals, and engages in political campaigns, and also blows people up. To apply any single label (political? terrorist? militant? NGO? humanitarian? What if they are all of the above, and more?) to a group, which cannot encompass the scope of an group's activities, inevitably leads to debate about the label used. Ronabop 09:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

historical revisionism (politics?)

Removed the sentence: "Thus Holocaust revisionism has come to be understood as revisionist history, rather than historical revisionism." This distinction is unknown by the scientific world. See talk pages of revisionist history. Those two articles should be merged. I hope readers of this page understand the necessity to do so. Kaliz 21:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Which two articles? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why the Katyn massacre?

I understand that the Katyn massacre is a horrible event that is often denied by various authorities, but it really doesn't seem to be a good fit with this article. I don't think anyone argues that Katyn was an attempt at genocide, and, while a horrific massacre, I am not sure why it would be included along with the Armenian Genocide and Japanese war crimes as an example attached to the Holocaust denial article. Could we consider removing it, and perhaps include information about the Yugoslavian ethnic cleansing denials or other, more relevant, material? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong support. The Holocaust resulted in ethnic cleansing of the whole nation, while the execution of several thousand Polish officers at Katyn was an attempt of the Stalinist regime to eliminate its potential enemies, who had been planning war against the USSR for decades. Polish editors should first persuade the community that Katyn Incident was really a genocide rather than an "ordinary" Stalinist killing and only then refer to it in other articles as such. As I said elsewhere, there is no comparison between Holocaust and Katyn, because their scale is uncomparable and because the Katyn victims were Polish POWs (officers mostly) and not women, children, and other civilians. --Ghirlandajo 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Retitle section? I think there is a strong case for Katyn to be here. While it's not a genocide, it certainly is an attrocity, and there was a massive coverup attempted with it. It's good for contrast as it was an "Allied" (Soviet) crime which the Nazi's discovered. And after the war, the Soviet's tried to spin this into a Nazi crime, which it wasn't. -- 01:34:06 Dec 13 2005 (UTC)

• I've just flip-flopped on this after reading Katyn Massacre. This sentence: Still, there are some who deny Soviet guilt, call the released documents fakes and try to prove that Poles were shot by Germans in 1941 -- if you can cite this then you have something exactly analagous to Holocaust denial. I still don't think that the Soviet-Polish-American-British conspiracy (at various times) to shift the blame for the massacre to the Nazis is of the same flavor, though. It's not just because of the scale; it's not just because of the target. It's not just because of the absence of genocidal intentions. Maybe it's because, unlike Holocaust deniers, it's unlikely that the Soviet propagandists believed their propaganda. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

JP, do you really think modern deniers really believe any of _their_ own propaganda? Except for a select few that actually persue new research, it's the same tired arguements trotted out time and time again, which have already been thoroughly refuted. I think the parallel is very apt; as Soviet propagandists might not have believed it, but they would still endlessly repeat it.

-- 13 December 2005

• Yeah, actually -- after a couple of decades of dealing with these idiots, I've come to the conclusion that most of them actually are so blinded by their hatred of Jooooz that they are willing to believe absolutely anything that casts their hate objects in a bad light. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Documenting World Affairs, and Objectivity

An objective observation (I hope):

Mainstream writers are able to argue against the revisionism/denial movement because so much time was put into documenting what people saw at the time. Gen. Eisenhower reportedly ordered extraordinary coverage of concentration/death camps specifically to prevent people from denying that it had happened. Military personnel documented what they saw; military and civilian people searched German records; the Allies brought the Nazis to public trial and based the trial on Nazi documents. Whatever one believes about the trials and the documents, one has a massive amount of evidence to consider. Someone who goes out to deny the Shoach must account for all of this evidence.

This points out the importance of historians, journalists, and legal personnel in simply *documenting*, as best as possible, any and all world affairs. The debate about the Armenian massacres continues specifically *because* no nation, no person, was willing or able to investigate at the time.

It also points out that we have to work as hard as possible to be objective in Wikipedia and everywhere else. State what you know, and the conclusions will soon become evident to anyone who has an open mind. Those that have a closed mind can't be changed no matter *what* you say. Jmalin 19:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny thing about your statement on closed minds. Now I don't know about you, but denying historians or other specialists the right to challenge history? That is close-minded. Anyway, how in the world does having an open mind have anything to do with analyzing the Holocaust? Throw me another catch word - how about tolerance? democracy? (or if you're a devoted wikipedian, NPOV?) Whats another one people like to use and not really abide by these days?

Perhaps you don't understand what the dispute is about, Jmalin. Nobody denies that the Nazis mistreated the Jews, discriminated against them, threw them into concentration camps, forced labor camps or murdered them without much afterthought as they swept eastward (what you mention relates to all of these) but what is being disputed is the extent to which these measures were carried out, specifically relating to the Final Solution, the main concept that sets the Jewish experience apart from other catastrophic experiences in World War II.

And revisionists (as opposed to "revisionists") aren't just "close-minded". If anything, you have the relationship backwards because they are the only ones who are willing to point out the discrepancies you've overlooked. For example, the Nazi documents at the war trials? Many are Soviet photo copies of...copies. Proving your point wouldn't be so difficult if you didn't have the credibility of Stalin's show trial goons leading the way. There's also the debate of terminology (ausrotten, endsalung) and the show me the "plan" for extermination debate (does mein kampf count?) There are a handful of discrepancies that once were taken as unnegotiable facts that have since been dispelled, despite their supposed war crime trial documentation: shrunken heads, human soap, lamp shades, the fluctuating numbers themselves...the "how deep does the rabbit hole go" debate. And of course, the ever popular "how is the memory of the holocaust being used" debate and the "why is debating this illegal?" debate.

I can answer the last one for you: no matter how far "revisionists" or revisionists push, it dawned on me one day that there is no turning back from the main idea, as it would never be allowed to happen. To understand the results of overturning the Holocaust belief system, look at the behavior of the prejudiced, who claim it didn't happen, but it should have...weird. On your Armenia comment, you're also forgetting that the opposition doesn't have a reason to fight quite like today's opponents. Armenian genocide hasn't brought about a world where tolerance might just be more important than the social order, the national community is discredited and authoritarianism is bad policy. Also Germans will have to deal with a blood libel (oh the irony) long after those who are responsible for the Holocaust are gone. Worse, those who were involved, from the corporations to the other nations, didn't have to answer for some reason --68.45.21.204 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

An article full of "most", "almost all" without specifying how many are "most" and "almost all" cannot possibly be NPOV. Somebody needs to provide figures if such strong assertions are to be made. --Vizcarra 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, from Public Opinion Quarterly, the most respected journal on polling and opinion research on the planet: "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis." That is pretty definitive, and yhey use the much stronger "no reputable historian" and the article just says "almost all" or "most " If you are going to argue otherwise, please provide some sources of your own. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust denial includes those who do not "question the reality of the Holocaust" but question the description of how it was occurred. Again, another point of the confusion between the two. --Vizcarra 23:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct, Vizcarra. Can you give an example of someone who is a denier who does not question the reality of the Holocaust (Defined in this article as the deliberate targeting of the Jews and Roma, around 5-6 million Jewish deaths, and gas chambers and industrialized killing techniques)? Also, you did not respond to the piece from POQ, which should allow you to remove the POV tag and restore the words "almost all." --Goodoldpolonius2 23:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not need to keep providing sources. Just read the first paragraph of the article. <<Also, you did not respond to the piece from POQ, which should allow you to remove the POV tag and restore the words "almost all.">> No it doesn't. Again... you are confusing HD with denying the holocaust. HD includes both "denying the holocaust" and not agreeing with the account of it. So, in a sense saying that there were 4 million Jewish deaths is in fact HD (although not "denying the Holocaust", just the account of "5-6 million"). --Vizcarra 23:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not need to keep providing sources. What sources have you provided so far? You are confusing HD with denying the holocaust. What does that mean? I have never heard of this difference between "holocaust denial" and "denying the holocaust." This sounds entirely original. Please explain, and please do provide at least one source backing you up. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You have never heard of such thing? Well let me introduce you to this article Holocaust denial, which is not original research since I did not write it. And that's my source to back me up. --Vizcarra 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, I have to admit that I am confused. You claim explicitly above there is a difference between "denying the Holocaust" and "Holocaust denial". You now say your source for this is this article. Where is this distinction drawn? I word-seached and it does not seem to be there. Further, you state that the Public Opinion Quarterly article is not valid because it does not take this distinction into account. You are going to need to help me understand what this distinction is, and what your source for it is in order for your argument to make sense and not be original research. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the sources you have provided as "Holocaust denial" refer to people or organizations that deny the Holocaust existed. However, Holocaust denial refers to "the claims that the Holocaust did not occur as it is defined by mainstream historiography". That is the distinction. Deying the Holocaust existed is illegal in some countries but not agreeing completely on the accounts (numbers, facts, ect.) Again, my source is the wikipedia article, which not only mentions this but also that <<([Holocaust] deniers insist that they do not deny the Holocaust, preferring to be called "Holocaust revisionists". They are nevertheless commonly referred to as "Holocaust deniers" due to the fact that they deny the veracity of the commonly held historical definition of the event". --Vizcarra 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

But the distinction you are drawing still doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't seem to be in the article. The first sentence "mainstream historiography" is almost immediately followed by a longer definition, which makes it clear what Holocaust denial is in more detail (denying rough death total, methods, and intentionality+belief in conspiracy). You seem to be arguing that there is confusion between "bad" Holocaust deniers who deny that the Holocaust happened and "good" Holocaust-deniers-who-are-called-Holocaust-deniers-even-though-they-don't-really-deny-the-Holocaust. Who, exactly, is in this second catagory? The distinction is not in the article, and you seem to be basing all of your claims on the fact that this article is smearing those people, who you think shouldn't be called deniers. Please give me an example of the problem, because currently you are talking about something that seems to not actually have a real case -- since the UN, American Historical Association, EU, and countless scholars have stated explicitly that "Holocaust denial" is not real scholarship. Please be explicit, as it will make the conversation easier. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No, again, you misunderstand, even though I was explicit. I am not challenging the name "Holocaust denier", if it has been decided to call them that way, fine. But, unfortunately, we are not talking about homogeneous groups. We are talking about: 1) Those who claim the Holocaust never existed, 2) Those who accept it existed but do not agree on the historical account (numbers, facts, etc.) 3) One that I did not mention but is considered a type of "Holocaust revisionism", which is comparing the state of Israel to Nazi Germany. The sources you are using to label them as "liars" are referring to #2 type. That is the problem, and that is where most of the controversy is. Obviously, it can be said that someone claiming the Holocaust did not happen is a liar, but this cannot be said of someone who disagrees with the actual number of deaths, etc. And calling someone who does not agree with any of these points a liar is POV because there are many opinions on the topic. --Vizcarra 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, I really don't understand, and I am sorry if that is frustrating, I am trying to discuss this reasonably, however. I ask you again to identify some segment of people who fall into catagory 2 -- somebody who is not trying to deny the reality of the Holocaust (that is who is not a class 1 denier, in your view) but does not believe that it had the three characteristics in the article: intentionality, around 5-6 million Jewish victims, and industrialized killing methods, including gas chambers. I would argue that these people do not exist, and you have yet to provide evidence that they do. The people listed in the article are all of that first class, and Holocaust deniers of the first type you identify typically do not identify themselves as Holocaust deniers, they just say that there was no plan to kill the Jews, only a couple hundred thousand Jews died, there were no gas chambers, the Jews had it coming, etc. So, to make your argument stand, you are going to need to provide some evidence, some source, or some historians that are labelled "holocaust deniers" but are not actually trying to deny the Holocaust. If you can't there really isn't an argument here. So, two questions: 1) Which reputable historians are labeled a Holocaust denier according to the article but isn't really one according to your criteria? and 2) What needs to be changed in the article for you to remove the POV flag? --Goodoldpolonius2 05:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "problem" is that scholarship lumps all categories of deniers together, thereby unintentially (yeah right) or intentially discrediting those who make revisionist claims. Note that a title like Holocaust denial isn't neutral to begin with, not that Holocaust revision is a better alternative, as it has the exact opposite effect. In addition to problems with the title, wikipedians are attempting to neutralize a category that includes a host of interesting characters, with "revisionists" who deny the event wanting to be called Holocaust revisionists, leaving actually revisionists who want to play with numbers and details not sure what to do. And yes, numbers do matter. Someone argued much earlier that either way there were atrocities, so Nazi sympathizers have a moot point. I highly disagree, simply because there are tremendous social and political consequences from the Holocaust being so intrinsically different from other atrocities throughout history. So the question is as are we entitled to seperate the two even if no effort has been made in the mainstream to accomplish this? This could become confusing, as the two paths tend to cross each other. For example, the controversial Zundel has had success with the numbers game and certain specific challenges despite the fact that many of his other claims are absurd, outright distortions.--68.45.21.204 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If Zundel is your best example in doing real reaserch then it is apparent that not much is being done. There is no vast conspiriecy to discredit holocaust deniers, just the facts. Calling Holocaust Denial Holocaust revisionism is no different then saying that a financial loss is a defered profit. It is simply putting a positive spin on it, which as a result just confuses the issue. The Holocaust is different from other genocides in that it was the first to become well known through out the world. --T-rex 19:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't we all just get along

I do believe that there is a consistent controversy over the semantical issue regarding the lables of Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionist. I tend to agree with those who would say it is denial to merely suggest any alteration of the well-recorded facts-- by the Nazi's themselves-- however in the interest of saving controversy, it might be very helpful to have two articles, if only to better meet page size requirements and whatnot. Holocaust revisionism might be proclaimed "pretending absolute ignorance as induced by deep-rooted Jew-hatred, racism, or geniune stupidity" as a part of this comprimise in my opinion. I don't know if this was suggested, but this discussion page is ridiculously long, redundant, and impertinent. --Nonymous-raz 02:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me , I think you're all discussing semantics here rather than the actual point of this article. Call them revisionists, call them Holocaust deniers, it doesn't change the fact that their ideas are the same. And that these ideas hide an Anti-semitic agenda. What will it change to call them revisionists or deniers? Nothing. It's called an euphemism. It's a choice of words.. no more than that. And it doens't change the fact that these people are trying to attack well-established historical facts widely accepted by mainstream historians and scholars. So what's the point?. It's like trying to prove that grey is a mixture of white and black instead of a mixture of black and white. whatever. I think you are being too kind with these people. What they're doing is called demagogy. signed: Pedro

Just what article and purpose are you referring to Pedro, the discussion at hand or the Holocaust denial article? If the latter, at least you are honest about your intentions. Contrary to popular belief, this article should not be an extended effort to discredit associated individuals and ideas. If this is the "actual point of the article" as you mention, well you've unintentially explained why a tag has been added. Our task is to report, not judge...and that doesn't mean overloading the article with popular opinion and views taken by "most historians". It seems in your own demogogial state, your hatred of those who challlenge the Holocaust is shining through brilliantly. Just with any other claim, you're required to hand over the evidence. Obstructing research, discrediting their merit and forcefully silencing deniers is counterproductive to scholarship. You are only furthering their convictions anyway. While some are questionable characters, they occasionally bring up valid points. If you aren't going to investigate their claims and deny them simply by association or your own sensitivity to the issue, then it is you who is lacking serious objectivity.--68.45.21.204 09:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Their claims are unworthy of further investigation. Encyclopedias are about truth, not about the delusions of obsessed Jew-haters. "Obstructing research" -- what research? "Discrediting their merit" -- what merit? What historical truths have deniers uncovered? What illumination have they brought to the darkness of the Third Reich? Pfui. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just reverted significant changes to the article made by an anonymous user who, as far as I can see, did not discuss them on the talk page. -Parallel or Together? 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Nice. -- Hinotori 05:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This has to END

Has no one noticed that it looks like the SAME person has made POV edits at least 23 times? Notice the nearly identical ip of all of the following edits, all similar, and all reverted (in several cases, a number of edits were reverted at once):

61.122.255.24 6 times

61.122.255.34 1 time

61.122.255.198 2 times

61.122.255.189 4 times

61.122.255.178 1 time

61.122.255.10 1 time

61.122.255.159 4 times

61.122.255.144 4 times

Total reverts: 12

This is most likely the same guy with a dynamic ip. This user refuses to come onto the talk page and discuss his changes; instead, he stubbornly decides to add them back in wasting everyone's time. Can something be done about this? -- Hinotori 09:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, considering I can change my IP by a much wider range than you mentioned. I don't believe I was being stubborn - IMHO it was you who were being stubborn. Honestly somebody should remove the blatant political bias that I mentioned already (in my declared reason for editing - or didn't you notice?). The terminology used is both politically biased and emotive, it's not objective and you can play semantics all you like - but if it was objective and uncolored by emotional bias I wouldn't have worried, I wouldn't bothered editing it at all. -- 219.122.199.211

That's not the point at all. At the very top of this page it says that substantial changes should be discussed here before being put in. When your changes were reverted the first time, that was a big red sign that you should come here and discuss them first. If we reach a consensus and you make a valid case for your changes, then I'm more than willing to accept that. Please don't try to obfuscate the matter by pointing the stubborn card back at the overwhelming majority of editors when it's your responsibility to respect the guidelines for editting and discussion (especially for a controversial topic like this). Now that you're finally here, maybe discourse can begin, although I must admit, I find it extremely troubling that you open up your first comment with what essentially amounts to a, "I did it before, and I can do it again." I think, at the very least, it'd be a sign of good faith if you created an account to help facilitate discussion. -- Hinotori 13:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed however, that no such consensus about changes exists. One side completely has ignored the other and stubbornly persists with the emotive labelling. Not even the slightest toning down of the article to being even slightly objective exists as it is in it's current state. As to creating an account, unfortunately the security settings on my PCs (which I refuse to weaken for other reasons) don't permit any editing when logged in via an account, so I gave up that idea long ago. I believe that I made my point. The article as it currently is, is obviously not trustworthy.

There is discussion, but it's obvious where the majority lies on this issue. As for "ignoring" the other side, the extensive argumentation above handily refutes that. It's nonsensical to say that stubborness is a trait of the majority, when it's you who was constantly making the same edits repeatedly with disregard to guidelines. -- Hinotori 23:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's not so obvious where the majority lies on this issue because if you took the time to go through every post written on the dicussion of the article, like I did, you'd find that there isn't some massive overwhelming majority supporting your side of the argument. By lumping everyone on the revisionist side together as deniers (when most aren't), labelling them as neo-nazis (most aren't), and anti-semites (a really silly claim because some of the revisionists are jews too), it really is a silly article. The thing I noticed was that a few people are simply pushing the same point repeatedly and ignored 13 other distinctly different users almost entirely. You only have a scant majority, not an overwhelming one. 219.122.199.89 (me again)

Oh and one other thing, your "majority" consists of just 4 more people. Hardly overwhelming, and probably easily subject to change. 61.122.255.77 (me again)

You're dodging the central issue (again). Nowhere did I say there was an overwhelming majority of editors on the issue itself. The majority I was referring to was the consensus of editors here, including those people who agree with you but respected the request to discuss changes first. For someone who went "through every post post written on the dicussion [sic] of the article," I find it ironic that you ignored this very discussion page when you deliberately inserted your changes more than a dozen times.

Next, you assume that I'm with the others against using the term revisionists, and again, not surprisingly, you're wrong. Personally, I'm on the fence on the issue. If YOU had read every post on this talk page, you would have noticed that I have not made a case on the issue either way, and I even use the term "revisionist" more than "deniers." Personally, I think there is a difference between the two terms (even if I think both concepts are historically very poorly founded). If, through discussion, we come to an agreement to use "revisionists" instead of "deniers," you'd find me not opposed.

Thirdly, you defeat your own logic. If the majority is, in fact, so scant, then it should be all the easier to convince them to make your changes. Instead of stubbornly doing things your own way, if you really feel this article is so unobjective, work with the other editors here rather than against them.

Finally, a tip. If you want to get anywhere in the debate above (which, again, I am not a part of yet), I recommend you drop the condescending tone. You're an established and admitted violator of Wikipedia guidelines, so, really, the least you can do is assume good faith on the behalf of the other editors here (whose work you've called "silly").

Cheers.

-- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 12:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

James J. Martin

Was James J. Martin a "holocaust denier"? RJII 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like, among other things, he was that, at least near the end of his life.

HR vol. 15 no. 3 (May / June 1995), pg. 46: In a letter, Martin writes, "Personally, I am about brimful (sic?) on 'gas chambers' and may stop reading about the subject. As I have mentioned, I classify them with unicorns; for centuries Europeans have believed tenaciously in the latter since at least the time of Aristotle, but in all that time never came up with one. Maybe there will be centuries of belief in 'gas chambers' with the same consequences. I am sure the 'hoax Establishment must stick by this fantasy, for to admit that it is all smoke would seriously undermine faith in anything else they allege. However, they did slink off from the fable of soap made from Jewish fat..."

One letter of Martin's which is available online appeared in JHR vol. 12 no. 2 (Summer 1992), pg. 251). In a letter entitled "Reflections on a Death," Martin writes about the Holocaust, "...the Holocaustians have turned the whole thing into a new religion anyway. To me there is a close relation between a racket like this one and spiritualism, for example. Holocaust zealots trap their revisionist critics in much the same way that the spiritualists treated their scoffers during their heyday...The 'Hoaxers' do much the same thing: the more outrageous of the Holocaust atrocities they endlessly circulate don't have to be proven. Instead, it is up to those who deny they happened to prove they did not...One of these days I should try to get a foundation to underwrite a trip to central Africa. After returning I would announce that I had encountered a tribe of talking monkeys, and then challenge anyone who does not believe me to prove otherwise." (See: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p245_Letters.html#Martin)

(above from [8]). That, and spending 25 years hanging out with IHR puts at the very least a serious taint of holocaust denial on his fascinating resume. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He was very much a follower of Barnes, and had a similar intellectual trajectory based on establishing the moral equivalence between Allies and Axis. As he took that point further, he increasingly began to explain away or minimize Axis crimes. By late in his career, he went all the way to full-blown Holocaust denial. He also wrote some pieces for David Duke's "No War for Israel" site -- as if IHR association wasn't enough! --Goodoldpolonius2 04:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I was wondering because someone had asked earlier if any "professional historians," as opposed to "amateur historians," were "Holocaust deniers." So, there's one --Phd in History and all. RJII 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think article needs a section on pro-jewish holocaust denial

Hello, there are some people who are not anti-semite and they support research and holocaust revisionism. Because for them, if it turns out that less then six million died, it is a good thing. Basically they think the less people who were executed the better. If this point of view was added the article would be less controversial. I can't do it myself since its locked.

Forgive me, but this makes no sense to me. There's no "good" thing that can come out of thinking that less people were executed. If, by some chance, "revisionists" or "deniers" or whatever you want to call them turn out to be right, the people who were thought dead and weren't don't magically rise from the grave. You can't change the past, regardless of what your interpretation of it is. Either they died or they didn't. The only "good" thing that could come out of denial/revisionism is finding the truth, IF, by some chance, they turn out to be right. But you'll find that arguing that is going to be very hard.

-- Hinotori 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am not understanding what you mean,"There's no "good" thing that can come out of thinking that less people were executed", there definetely is good from possibly finding out that less people were executed, not thinking it. It is less trauma and guilt for everyone, I'd rather live in a world where it turns out only a few people got executed in holocaust then in a world where 5000 billion got executed, don't know about you though. This is why some people support _research_ into holocaust revisiniosm, not because they have some political agenda, and I thought this is important to note. Its kind of sick when people for some reason don't want any research and scream at anyone who even hints at holocaust revisionism, almost like they want to hold on to idea that a bunch of people died at any cost. I think you may be an anti-semite or at least pro-massive-execution.

Zexarious 17:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. You DON'T understand what I mean, so I'll explain it again. But first of all, quite frankly, not only are your accusations of anti-semitism and "pro-massive-execution" incredibly malicious and insulting, but completely unfounded. Most of the die-hard opponents of "Holocaust revisionism" are Jews themselves who are AGAINST the notion of trivializing how horrible the Holocaust was. They don't want people to think it wasn't a big deal because they are the ones who suffered through it. It's like if I broke every limb in your body and then said, "Don't worry, it's just a scratch." If you think for some bizarre reason that "Holocaust revisionists" are the ones who are "pro-Jewish" then you clearly have no grasp on fact, and even the "revisionists" themselves will be super quick to point that out to you.

That being said, you completely missed my point. I stated quite clearly that finding the truth IS a good thing IF it is the truth. In other words, if, by some miracle, "Holocaust revisionists," are right in some of their claims, by all means, I'd support their findings. But their claims go against the overwhelming majority of evidence that's available. And if they're wrong, their claims do much HARM to the sensibilities of Jews and Holocaust survivors. As I mentioned above, it trivializes, cheapens the horrible things that occurred. What I meant when I said that "no good thing" could come out of thinking less people were killed is that you can think whatever you want, but that can't change history. I could "think" that NO ONE died in the Holocaust, but is that going to bring 6 million innocent people back to life? No. "Thinking" that it wasn't as bad as it was doesn't make it any better; in fact, it makes it much, much worse, because it robs the survivors of their claims to justice and it robs the world of a bad memory that might help stop such a thing from happening again. As I said, truth IS a good thing, and incredible amounts of research HAS been done regarding the Holocaust; "revisionists" are the extreme minority when it comes to these claims.

Going back for a moment to your incredible claims against me, I'm going to assume good faith (with difficulty) and dismiss your attack as a misunderstanding. But don't ever call me a racist again.

-- Hinotori 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason a higher number is perceived as better data with respect to this issue is because we want to account for every life lost. We are doing an injustice to those who died if we fail to express adequately the crimes against humanity that occured. This isn't the world trade center disaster, where innocents gave their lives for others; after the WTC disaster, we were relieved as the number of deaths declined because that meant more people were being accounted for. The holocaust was a mass murder, and the victim's families want to ensure that their loved ones were accounted for, otherwise it is effectively allowing the Nazi's to literally get away with murder, even if one murder is a drop in the proverbial bucket. The holocaust is long gone, and if the number of recorded murders goes down, it's not because we are finding our lost ones in the wreckage, but losing them to it. Shaggorama 09:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Zexarious, what you may not realize is how finely these numbers have been picked over, qualified, quantified, and examined. While it's almost impossible to determine the exact dates, names, means, and locations of death for each and every every Holocaust victim (hence, some sights *are* slowly changing some numbers as more research is done, such as the sign at Aushwitz, the occasional new discovery of a mass grave), that kind of fine-grained accounting doesn't affect the very basics of the numbers themselves, which are often derived quite simply: Populations of Jews and other peoples before WWII, and the population of Jews and other peoples after WWII. Somewhere around 6 million Jews, and 6 million others, vanished outside of known combat deaths. Of the roughly "6 million Jews" (which often seems to be a big focal point, but note that the article goes as low as 5.1 million, links to an accounting of 4,194,200, and references to the 7 million figure as well), it's pretty well established that around somewhere around 3 million perished in death camps, and somewhere around one million died at the hands of the Einzatsgruppen. So, that leaves 2 million, but with the epidemics of the ghettos, concentration camps, deaths under forced marches, deliberate starvation programs, pogroms by civillians, and extra-judicial killing by police and soldiers, eventually arriving at around 6 million is hardly a surprising number. Regarding your original point, it might be accurate to characterize the numbers differently than "6 million were executed", as few scholars would argue that exactly 6 million were all summarily executed, but 6 million is a rough amount of Jewish people who died, one way or another. Regarding *exact* numbers, there are reputable scholars and studies that use lesser numbers than 6 million, as well as reputable scholars and studies that use greater numbers. 6 million isn't mean to be a literal accounting, but rather, a rough estimate based on consensus. See: http://www1.ushmm.org/research/library/index.php?content=faq/index.php%23topic01-question02 , where there's discussion about accounting.

So, in summary, there certainly are Holocaust historians who believe that less than exactly 6 million were executed, or even died, and we even cite them in the article. What we *aren't* doing is giving credibility to non-historian revisionists, because they're revisionists first and historians second. Ronabop 04:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Revise revisionists

The section in the article which talks about holocaust revisionists stated that they were basically deniers, which isnt true (I myself dont believe 11 milion people died in the holocaust, but I dont believe it didnt happen).

I have further defined holocaust revisionism in the article and described how it is different to holocaust denial.

Your definition is original research. As can be seen from the article, Holocause deniers are not called that because they think that only 10.5 million Jews were intentionally slaughtered. They're called that because they assert that it was not intentional and that only a fraction of that number died. If you wish to clarify the distinctions, please find proper reference materials. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only claimed that 6 million jewish people died in the holocaust, the other 5 million are (off the top of my head) slavs, homosexuals, political activists etc. I'm sure there are more but yeah

Holocaust denial is the belief that there was no holocaust at all, and that it is a jewish conspiracy. Holocaust revisionism is the belief that the holocaust did happen, just that 11 million people didnt die.

• Go through the archives. We've had this discussion. Virtually all deniers claim to be revisionists. This is consensus. Wikibofh_(talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not really a consensus. There was a lot of disagreement, and, seeing no one really switch sides, there probably still is. There's a majority, yes, and a decent one at that, but not a consensus. However, seeing as a consensus isn't really possible, this is the best we can do. And yes, this issue has been discussed quite a bit, so looking through the archives is a good idea. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't tell me we're going to get into a meta-discussion on consensus consensus.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Heh, don't worry. I'm not looking for one. :) I just wanted to make the distinction because editors who are in disagreement but are respectful of the majority's wishes might feel marginalized otherwise. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the term "holocaust denial" is POV

The use of the term Holocaust denial throughout this article qualifies as a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, as it implicitly indicates that Holocaust deniers actually deny the Holocaust. I do not see how to fix this, but this article is patently slanted as long as it takes upon itself to judge what term is correct and hence employ it. // paroxysm (n) 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article mentions Holocaust revisionism as an alternative name. Would you support moving the article there? Izehar 19:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No. We need a neutral name... though I can't recall any. // paroxysm (n) 20:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And isn't Holocaust revisionism a neutral name? IMO it solves the problem completely: it does not indicate that Holocaust deniers actually deny the Holocaust (sic). In fact, Holocaust denial/revisionism is a form on historical revisionism - therefore, the term Holocaust revisionism seems to work quite nicely. Izehar 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• No, it's not a neutral name, and Holocaust denial is not a form of historical revisionism. We've had this conversation countless times. Please go through the archives and see if you have anything new to add. And, yes, Holocaust deniers actually deny the Holocaust. That's why they're called that. Other people involved in legitimate historical research regarding Holocaust data are called "historians". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  Holocaust deniers only deny certain elements of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself, per se. The term "Holocaust denial" infers they deny the entire concept.

  "Denial" also insinuates that they are refusing to believe something which is true (think in denial). I do not feel its use is appropriate at all for a neutral encyclopedia. // paroxysm (n) 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)